Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it. Surprised at the number of people riding triple rings (hence my, somewhat, ironic post)
Not sure what to try next summer. Tourmalet,sounds good
"M Series" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Pete @ eclipse said:
Well......
I did Ventoux in 94 on 39x24, that same trip I climbed the Aubisque, Tourmalet, Glandon/Croix de Fer, Alpe d'Huez and Columbiere. Couldn't do it now though on the same set up.
I was pretty fit in those days, we followed the Tour through the Pyrenees and Alps. We saw the Tour at the summit of the Tourmalet, Eros Poli won the stage after an epic break.
This year I rode over the Pyrenees again (Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyresourde, Aubisque), it is the first time I have used a triple, my lifestyle is such that I can't put the hours in to get to the same levelof fitness as before. I think with high spec. triples being available now and the realisation that spinning instead of grinding is better for one it is more acceptable to use a triple.
"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Pete @ eclipse said:
Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.
42 x 22 in 1970.
Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)
John B
Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty damn pleased if I get up it on a 30 x 32. So there!
I'm not boasting, honest. I just wanted to start a conversation on triples.
FWIW if I'd have had a triple ring I would have used it ! I thought that Ventoux was beyond me, but was determined to get to the top. (This was my challenge ride before <cough> <cough> that certain age).
If you ever watch Le Tour, then I'd recommend trying one of the mountain stages; it will give you a totally different perspective when watching next year.
Whatever you cycle, enjoy
Pete
"Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Pete @ eclipse said:
Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.
42 x 22 in 1970.
Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)
John B
Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty damn pleased if I get up
"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Pete @ eclipse said:
Good one. I struggled up Ventoux on 42*27. Chuffed I did it.
42 x 22 in 1970.
Mad I know, but I was only young ;-)
John B
Ok, you can stop boasting now. Look, I'm in my 50's (at least, that's my excuse) and if I should ever get around to trying Ventoux, Tourmalet, or anywhere else like it, I think I shall be pretty damn pleased if I get up it on a 30 x 32. So there!
Well back then I only had a double with a five block. Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81.
...and it'd take three days twiddling to reach the top.
Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B
81 gears seems excessive. lol
The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'
PS: I ride fixed sometimes too.
Competition Idea: I wonder how many 'gears' I have on all my bikes added up? <shifties off to garage to count>
John B
I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe cross ones .
-- yours S (addy' not usable[not that you would try it anyway]) Illegitimi non carborundum www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php
JohnB wrote: > Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B
81 gears seems excessive. lol
The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'
I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe cross ones .
It *is* 81 on the same machine (recumbent trike, not a bike)
Quite easy really, its.... On the front: Deore XT Triple 22/32/44 Rear: Deore XT mech with 11 - 34 cassette Rear hub: SRAM Dual Drive 3 x 9
I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe cross ones .
3 on the front, 9 on the back and a 3 speed hub, 81 gears but there may be some duplication;-)
> JohnB wrote: >> Today it would be my 9" gear, lowest of my 81. John B > > 81 gears seems excessive. lol
The low gear is essential when grinding a laden trice up a 1 in 4 tho'
I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe cross ones .
It *is* 81 on the same machine (recumbent trike, not a bike)
Quite easy really, its.... On the front: Deore XT Triple 22/32/44 Rear: Deore XT mech with 11 - 34 cassette Rear hub: SRAM Dual Drive 3 x 9
Its not _that_ uncommon an arrangement.
John B
K K "uncle" LOL was thinking of a standard 'bike (not a 'bent) with seven front rings rofl (after all the thread was about running three front rings ).
-- yours S (addy' not usable[not that you would try it anyway]) Illegitimi non carborundum www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php
I was imagining 81 gears on the same bike at the same time .7 rings and 11 on the back that's only 77 wonder where the rest come from. rofl Mind you 7 rings 12 on the back ignore the severe cross ones .
3 on the front, 9 on the back and a 3 speed hub, 81 gears but there may be some duplication;-)
Only half a job really.
Why not:
3 on front 10 on back 14 speed rholoff hub Schlumpf mountain drive
