Double or Triple

Just as it looks .......... triple has the inner chainring for climbing.

Don't like triples on road bikes myself ........... but for recreational riding it probably isn't a bad idea. And if you have a ton of hills in the area.

I just see the inner chainring as a cop out though .......... if you really needed to use it, you shouldn't be riding hills much yet ........ 😉

lol - originally it had a double but the person who i bought it off changed it, i kind of thought that was the awnser but i thought there might be more to it,
thx anyway 🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Daremo

I just see the inner chainring as a cop out though .......... if you really needed to use it, you shouldn't be riding hills much yet ........ 😉

Can you hold 12+mph on a 8+% gradient for a mile or more? Most people can't. That is why that argument (against a triple) is stupid.

Ive read several posts on this debate. I myself have a triple. I use the inner less and less but there are 1 or 2 hills on the rides that I do that it's just not feasible for me. One of them is a 14% gradient and there is no way I'm doing that in my middle ring which is a 42. Maybe if it was a 39 like on most doubles I might be able to do it. Although I have never ridden a bike with a 39 so I really can't say. I will have to get a bit stronger before I think about going to a double.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by leif_ericson
Can you hold 12+mph on a 8+% gradient for a mile or more? Most people can't. That is why that argument (against a triple) is stupid.

On almost all my routes around where I live, I have to climb a minimum of three miles + on each ride (even the 20 mile loop I do) because of my location near a valley area. And the grades can vary from 5 - 10%. I haven't averaged 12+ up them since I was a Cat. 3 over 6 years ago and there aren't many recreational cyclists who can ............ I stopped riding for 6 years, gained 35 pounds, and am finally getting back into riding.

But I DO climb all but one of the hills in my 39 X 19 at the most ........ (I run an 11 X 21 cassette with a 39/53). Lately I have been averaging over 10 up them compared to the 7-9 I was doing a few months ago. And I have a 58 cm steel framed bike, that is not on the light side of things by any stretch of the imagination!

Years ago I would run a 42/53 set-up with an 11-21 .........

Even in Germany when I was stationed there and first got into cycling, I ran a double with only 6 speeds in the rear (way back in '91).

With little experience at the time, and just a basic knowledge of how my body responding to pedaling, I would stand and sit as needed to get up the mountains (some up to 10 km's long). I still do that, but I now have 10+ years of riding experience and knowledge to fall back on.

If cyclists made it up hills using a single gear for years, then we can certainly do it using 16-20 .......... I stand firm with the belief that people should not need a triple ............ Touring with panniers up the Rockies, yeah, I'll give someone that, but not a recreational ROAD cyclist riding 20-50 miles a ride.

Just my worthless opinion.

And to add to that .................

If you can't average 12 + with a double up the hill ...... adding the triple isn't going to allow you to do that ............ physics is physics ....... changing to a easier gear will not make it THAT much easier to maintain a set velocity up a hill