2 or 3 chaining road bike?

Your prejudice and machismo (surprising in a person named Suzy) is showing. Triples have been
appearing in the TdF, and are good for people with knee trouble as well. Would you ride a 21 - 11 in
the mountains with 54 - 42 chainrings? I'd wager you wouldn't. Just 'cuz someone's skinny or not
obese doesn't mean that a triple is not appropriate for them.

Terrain to be ridden, aerobic conditioning and style of riding has a lot more to do with this
decision than whether one is overweight or not.

App

"Suzy Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Zilla wrote...

Quoted message said:

Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad,

They're to cater for the mountain bike crowd who can't cope unless they have gears where they'd
walk faster.

If you're overweight (either through obesity or luggage) get a triple, otherwise a normal double
is quite adequate.

Regards,

Suzy

"Dave Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, "I C S"
| <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > I only use a double on my road bike... but then again it is a 48/34
double.
| > A much more realistic setup for the average cyclist.
| >
| >
| >
|
| Where did you get those chainrings?
|
| I have thought about riding with close to the same setup.
|
| Dave in Minnesota

Got the crank from Rivendell. Put on a 48t big ring. Those they have as well. This is an awesome
crank! rivendellbicycles.com12223.htmlOpen ↗

At mile70 on a hilly Western Pennsylvania century, I'm always glad I have a triple. "Jeff"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

San Francisco = 3-ring. Kansas = 2-ring.

Other locations, you decide.

"Zilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Seems like 3-chaining road bikes are making the fad, or are they more than just a fad? Most of
the bikes I see in the LBS are 2-chaining.

--
- Zilla (Remove XSPAM)

"Appkiller" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Your prejudice and machismo (surprising in a person named Suzy) is showing.

As is your prejudice and sexism.

Quoted message said:

Triples have been appearing in the TdF

Good to hear. Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any decent Alps in our country, and
even in those countries where they do, I understand that most people don't ride up them very often.

Quoted message said:

Would you ride a 21 - 11 in the mountains with 54 - 42 chainrings? I'd wager you wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't. My normal gearing is 12-23 on the back and 39-49 chainrings. It hardly counts as
machismo, and suits my use and the terrain quite well. If I were riding in mountainous terrain, I
might even throw a 13-26 on the back.

I view triples on road bikes with much the same disdain with which I view four wheel drives in the
city. Funny enough, everyone in the city who owns a four wheel drive can come up with a reason they
need it, too.

For the _vast_ majority of ordinary riding, triples are unnecessary IMO, and make for gearing with
soggy shifting.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email hidden] suzyj.netsuzyj.netOpen ↗

"Terry Morse" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

US Postal Team used triples in the 2002 Vuelta a Espana, with a lowest gear of 30/25. I doubt that
anyone on US Postal would be considered overweight.

Well next time I'm climbing the Pyrenees, I'll be sure to fit one. Until then, I hope you don't mind
if I stick to my 39/49 double with 12-23 cassette.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email hidden] suzyj.netsuzyj.netOpen ↗

Suzy Jackson said:

"Terry Morse" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

US Postal Team used triples in the 2002 Vuelta a Espana, with a lowest gear of 30/25. I doubt
that anyone on US Postal would be considered overweight.

Well next time I'm climbing the Pyrenees, I'll be sure to fit one. Until then, I hope you don't
mind if I stick to my 39/49 double with 12-23 cassette.

Well, if you stay out of the mountains, you don't need gears at all. A single speed will do fine.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Suzy Jackson:

Quoted message said:

I view triples on road bikes with much the same disdain with which I view four wheel drives in the
city. Funny enough, everyone in the city who owns a four wheel drive can come up with a reason
they need it, too.

Wow, guilt by (huge illogical irrelevant) association. Which city? 4wds come in very handy on snowy
or icy roads in the winter time for those cities that experience sub-zero climates. Look beyond your
local environment, and examine how valid your generalisations are in the big, big world around you.

Quoted message said:

For the _vast_ majority of ordinary riding, triples are unnecessary IMO, and make for gearing with
soggy shifting.

So now the contention is that triple front chainrings never shift as crisply as doubles?
Experience-based or theorising?

Doubt if I'll ever make it to either the Pyrenees or the Alps. However, in southern Illinois or
northern Kentucky, to get to the stratospheric altitude of 1100 ft (3500 M), there are a few 17-20%
grades. My 50-yr-old knees can't handle those without a 30 up front. Oz may be different...

Quoted message said:

Well next time I'm climbing the Pyrenees, I'll be sure to fit one. Until then, I hope you don't
mind if I stick to my 39/49 double with 12-23 cassette.

Quoted message said:

I say "bollocks" as well (not exactly sure what it means...

Let's just say that you have two of them between your legs...

"Suzy Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| Good to hear. Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any
decent
| Alps in our country, and even in those countries where they do, I
understand
| that most people don't ride up them very often.

I live here in the USA and I reguarly ride up to a local ski station in the summertime. It's 16
miles up with grades up to 12%. I am sure glad to have that small ring in the front when I get on
those 12% sections. You must be ignorant to the fact that we do have steep hills here in the US.

I do go to Europe every two years and I have seen lots of people riding riding up the highest passes
in the Alps and the Pyrennees. But if you say that I did not witness what I witnessed, I must be
wrong. NOT!

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Keep in mind that many of the current crop of road bike buyers had been riding mountain bikes, and
almost nobody would consider a mountain bike without a triple. Thus they expect to see one on their
new road bike. The mountain bike era provided a natural break from the past, a way for more
progressive shops to dispense with all the myth and lore associated with the old-school of road
biking and move on.

Isn't ironic that this happened just as the 10 speed cassette arrives, making it possible to have an
"alpine cassette" that's not missing important gears (12-25 or 13-29 that both are straight blocks
through the 17)?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

Suzy Jackson said:

"Appkiller" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Your prejudice and machismo (surprising in a person named Suzy) is showing.

As is your prejudice and sexism.

There's other prejudice on display, I think!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Triples have been appearing in the TdF

Good to hear. Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any decent Alps in our
country, and even in those countries where they do, I understand that most people don't ride up
them very often.

So how often do you ride up a one-mile grade which tops 20% on various sections? The area I ride in
is at the southern glacial boundary. North is flat, and I'd never need a triple there (unless,
perhaps, loaded with camping gear). South is damned hilly. On one ride, an ex-racer with too-high
gears said he almost threw up climbing a certain hill. The folks with triples did fine.

Take a look at, say, a contour map of West Virginia (to which I sometimes ride). Perhaps that'll
convice you to restrict your recommendations to people who ride in exactly _your_ terrain.

Quoted message said:

I view triples on road bikes with much the same disdain with which I view four wheel drives in the
city. Funny enough, everyone in the city who owns a four wheel drive can come up with a reason
they need it, too.

I'm with you on the four wheel drives. I'm against you on the triples. I think you're showing
_extreme_ prejudice, and a lack of geographic knowledge as well.

Sorry if that's harsh.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

In my opinion, the shifting of the front derailleur is the only downside to having a triple. Precise
shifting by a narrower cage and only 2 positions is better than a good triple.

Double is excellent front shifting and triple is very good.

I am thinking that a 46/34 and 9sp system is the best way to go for lots of riders. With a 12/27
low gear inches are available. For my use, a 12/25 goes about anywhere I ride. It is a very
simple system.

Jose Rizal _@_._ said:

So now the contention is that triple front chainrings never shift as crisply as doubles?
Experience-based or theorising?

richard said:

Doubt if I'll ever make it to either the Pyrenees or the Alps. However, in southern Illinois or
northern Kentucky, to get to the stratospheric altitude of 1100 ft (3500 M), there are a few
17-20% grades. My 50-yr-old knees can't handle those without a 30 up front. Oz may be different...

3500 M is 11483 feet.

Mark Hickey said:

It's generally better to have three chainrings and a nice, tight cluster of 9 or 10 cogs in back
than to have two chainrings and a cluster with large jumps between gears.

I couldn't agree more. For a miniscule weight penalty, you have all the gears you want - a narrow
cluster for fast rides in a group and the *equivalent* of a wide cluster for the hilly bits. Not
only that, the low gears are close together too! The front shifts do take a bit more finesse, true,
but just a bit, IMHO.

Sure, I could climb out of the saddle in the middle ring - but why suffer when I can go just as fast
more comfortably on the little ring?
--
Mark Janeba remove antispam phrase in address to reply

Suzy Jackson said:

"Appkiller" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Triples have been appearing in the TdF

Good to hear. Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any decent Alps in our
country, and even in those countries where they do, I understand that most people don't ride up
them very often.

It's not the height, it's the steepness. An OS double-arrow (1 in 5 or steeper) may only go up
300ft but I still don't want to walk up it - come to Britain some day and we'll show you some
little big hills.

In addition, if people as fit as those who ride in the Tour require triples for Alpine hills, people
who are less fit (which does, yes, include you and everyone else posting here) might quite
reasonably require them for lesser hills.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

By prejudice, I meant WRT triples.

Sexism? If by sexism you mean my implied belief that generally, in comparison with men, women are
more practical and less interested in appearances, then, by all means, bring it on.

Your flippant generalizations, e.g., "Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any decent
Alps in our country" are patently false. Where do you cycle, the parking lot of Wal-Mart?

Give it up while you can still get out of the hole you're digging.

App

"Suzy Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Appkiller" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Your prejudice and machismo (surprising in a person named Suzy) is showing.

As is your prejudice and sexism.

Quoted message said:

Triples have been appearing in the TdF

Good to hear. Last time I looked though, we didn't actually have any decent Alps in our
country, and even in those countries where they do, I understand that most people don't ride up
them very often.

Quoted message said:

Would you ride a 21 - 11 in the mountains with 54 - 42 chainrings? I'd wager you wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't. My normal gearing is 12-23 on the back and 39-49 chainrings. It hardly counts as
machismo, and suits my use and the terrain quite well. If I were riding in mountainous terrain, I
might even throw a 13-26 on the back.

I view triples on road bikes with much the same disdain with which I view four wheel drives in the
city. Funny enough, everyone in the city who owns a four wheel drive can come up with a reason
they need it, too.

For the _vast_ majority of ordinary riding, triples are unnecessary IMO, and make for gearing with
soggy shifting.

Regards,

Suzy

--------------090800030809040602090701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just curious, Suzy. How tall are you and what do you weigh? Gary

Suzy Jackson said:

"Terry Morse" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

US Postal Team used triples in the 2002 Vuelta a Espana, with a lowest gear of 30/25. I doubt that
anyone on US Postal would be considered overweight.

Well next time I'm climbing the Pyrenees, I'll be sure to fit one. Until then, I hope you don't
mind if I stick to my 39/49 double with 12-23 cassette.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email hidden] suzyj.netsuzyj.netOpen ↗

--------------090800030809040602090701 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body>
Just curious, Suzy. How tall are you and what do you weigh?<br> Gary<br> <br> Suzy Jackson
wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email hidden]"> <pre
wrap="">"Terry Morse" wrote ...

</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">US Postal Team used triples in the 2002 Vuelta a
Espana, with a lowest gear of 30/25. I doubt that anyone on US Postal would be considered
overweight. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Well next time I'm climbing the Pyrenees,
I'll be sure to fit one. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I stick to my 39/49 double with
12-23 cassette.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href=""][email hidden]">[email hidden]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="suzyj.netsuzyj.netOpen ↗">suzyj.netsuzyj.netOpen ↗</a>

</pre> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html>

--------------090800030809040602090701--

"Peter Headland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I say "bollocks" as well (not exactly sure what it means...

Let's just say that you have two of them between your legs...

Seems like a strange response to a woman then...

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Keep in mind that many of the current crop of road bike buyers had been riding mountain bikes,
and almost nobody would consider a mountain bike without a triple. Thus they expect to see one on
their new road bike. The mountain bike era provided a natural break from the past, a way for more
progressive shops to dispense with all the myth and lore associated with

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

old-school of road biking and move on.

Isn't ironic that this happened just as the 10 speed cassette arrives, making it possible to have
an "alpine cassette" that's not missing important gears (12-25 or 13-29 that both are straight
blocks through the 17)?

For me, the advantage of the triple is not to get closely spaced gears, but to get a bigger absolute
range of gearing. I use a triple with a 11-28 MTB cassette. I use the 53-11 pretty frequently, and
the 30-28 on occasion. My preferred style isn't constant cadence, I like to drop the cadence down
when I'm time trialing and raise it when I'm doing a lot of climbing on long distance rides. The
first is for efficiency, the second, endurance; spacing between gears seems to make much less
difference to me.