What's the trade-off with triples?

[3cb]

Why is it axiomatic that double rings shift better?

[SoCalSteve]

I believe it has to do with chain wrap around the longer cage rear derauiler, it just isnt as crisp in its shifting as the shorter "double" rear derauiler...

Yes? No? Only partly true?

Steve

[giordana93]

the chain slop could slow things down in back more than front. I think front shifting crispness has more to do with the front derailleur having to fit (have enough clearance) for the big drop between the granny and big ring, so there is some added imprecision there, and at least in the pre-indexed triple era, the possibility of over or under shifting, like dropping from the big ring all the way down to the granny instead of the middle as intended, meant things weren't as quick.
and of course anything that has to do with "granny" must be for, how did Arnold put it? girlie-men. :beer:
I would bet though, that a triple of today shifts much better than a double of yesterday, esp. with all those pins and gates on the rings. depends more on if you are willing to have the long cage rear derailleur and how low you really need to go (i.e. for loaded touring or just hauling one's older body over some pitches)

[paulrad9]

For an unloaded rig in a mostly flat terrain, the trade off is psychological. A triple will slow you down and it's not because it's heavy or leads to sloppier shifting. What slows you down is that you're going to use the smaller gears because they are there. This translates to climbing in 26/23 at 9 mph as opposed to your 39/23 @ 12 mph.

[victoryfactory]

IMO the availability of 26 and 27 on cassettes and compact crank choices
makes a triple less necessary on a road bike.

VF

[WadePatton]

snobbery.

run a double and snobberize the riders on trips.

my trip works fine, a double would do fine too, but my road bike is a training ride-that's all.

[fierte_poser]

Why is it axiomatic that double rings shift better?

Well, the only things that are truly different are the longer cage on the rear derailleur, the 'bigger' front derailleur, the longer chain, and the difference in chainline due to the spacing/location of 2 chainrings vs. 3 chainrings.

Are you speaking specifically of chainring changes or cog changes?

[SamIAm]

I had a campy centaur "racing" triple on a bike and really was not satisfied at all with the shifting. It just was much more vague than my other setups. I replaced it with a centaur compact (50-34) with a 13-29 cassette so that I had access to some lower gears, love it.

[WadePatton]

For an unloaded rig in a mostly flat terrain, the trade off is psychological. A triple will slow you down and it's not because it's heavy or leads to sloppier shifting. What slows you down is that you're going to use the smaller gears because they are there. This translates to climbing in 26/23 at 9 mph as opposed to your 39/23 @ 12 mph.

but if you can recover from a 9mph climb whereas you blow up on the 12mph climb...js

[fierte_poser]

IMO the availability of 26 and 27 on cassettes and compact crank choices
makes a triple less necessary on a road bike.

VF

And, yet, if you print out two charts of available gear inches for the same cassette: one with a double crankset and one with a triple crankset, I think you would prefer the triple crankset for everything except racing.

No?

[fierte_poser]

I had a campy centaur "racing" triple on a bike and really was not satisfied at all with the shifting. It just was much more vague than my other setups. I replaced it with a centaur compact (50-34) with a 13-29 cassette so that I had access to some lower gears, love it.

Chainring shifts or cog shifts?

[SamIAm]

Chainring.

[RudAwkning]

I ran the following combos on my Triple Crown run last year. 50/34 in front with 13/29, 11/28 and finally a custom 11/29 (made from Chorus and Centaur cogs).

The 50/13 seemed to low of a high so I ditched that. And I never liked the way the IRD 11/28 shifted and figured if I'm gonna have a 25/28 in the rear I might as well make it a 26/29. The other 8 cogs were identical in spacing. That being said, the tooth jumps were pretty broad. 11-12-13-15-17-19-21-23-25/26-28/29. I kinda miss the the 14 and 16. + I'm used to sitting in the 39 on my standard setup on the flats and spinning. I can't do that as I top out the 34 too quick. Then I have to jump to the 50 where it's harder to get dialed because of the gaps.

My most recent ride was done with a triple 50-40-30 with an 11/27 in the rear. All campy with 2005 Chorus shifters (lots of clicks for the front). I could sit in the 40 and never top out on the flats. Hit the 50 on descents or plowing through rollers. 30 for climbing. The cassette I was using was a Wheels Manufacturing Shimano>Campy conversion cassette. 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-21-24-27. It shifted flawlessly and gave me those narrow tooth jumps I like.

And the front derailleur shifted flawlessly. I was doing all sorts of wacky cross chaining and kept waiting for the chain to drop between shifts. Never happened.

The only issues I consider are the weight penalty (the Centaur UT Compact crank weighs far less than the Campy Record Triple with Phil Wood BB) and the increased Q-factor. I measured that to be about 15mm. Significant but didn't prove a problem for me over the course of 300km.

edit: running a mid cage on the compact setup and a long cage on the triple setup.

[Lifelover]

When you stop at you local Salon for a drink and tie it up out front the cowboys with the 10 gallon hats and the A$$less chaps will mock you.

[CNY rider]

When you stop at you local Salon for a drink and tie it up out front the cowboys with the 10 gallon hats and the A$$less chaps will mock you.

Had to Swoop right in with the a$$less chaps comment didnt you...... :banana:

[johnnymossville]

I rode crits, road races, time-trials and stage races last year sporting a triple. Never hit the small-ring once, but hey, it's there if ya need it.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of triple chainring bikes at all.

[palincss]

IMO the availability of 26 and 27 on cassettes and compact crank choices
makes a triple less necessary on a road bike.

VF

Less necessary than when? Back in the day, 14-28 was a common touring freewheel, and you could easily find 14-32. (And don't say "MTB" because this was long before they were invented.)

[fiamme red]

Less necessary than when? Back in the day, 14-28 was a common touring freewheel, and you could easily find 14-32. (And don't say "MTB" because this was long before they were invented.)I remember that Suntour made a 14-38 freewheel. :banana:

[93legendti]

q factor

[Pete Serotta]

Over many years, I have used double, triple, compact, and rear cassettes of all sizes. :) They all got me to where I was going and kept me in the pack.

From a personal point of view, these are my experiences:

- Nothing shifts better than a double Ultegra or Dura Ace (but i prefer CAMPY)

- Compacts, especially while in small cogs in rear do not shift crisply from big front ring to small front ring. (they hang sometimes-especially on my CAMPY)

- Triples. work very well for me...weight on me is more of a problem than weight on the crank. I do notice that is is not as quick shifting and I assume that is because of the chain wrap. It is not cool to have a triple - but I do like them and take grief from my friends... :) :)

[Dave]

The shifting occurs at the upper RD pulley, not the lower one, so IMO (after using a Campy 10 triple exclusively during four seasons), there is no rear shifting penalty. Even if it takes a little longer for a medium or long cage RD to take up chain slack, that does not keep the upper half of the chain from transmitting power.

The only front shifting penalty occurs when shifting from the little ring to the middle ring. It's almost always a little slower than the middle to big ring shift, but not a shift that I make real often, so no big deal.

The middle ring is almost in the same position as the big ring on a double, so I treat it as such and almost never use the middle ring with the largest cog. Sure you can do it, but it's a pretty severe chainline.

I used a 50/34 compact with an 11-25 last year and had no problems with the front shifting. My chain never once hesitated when shifting from the big ring to the small or the opposite direction. I've never seen the need to shift to the little ring when in any of the small cogs.

Now I'm running 50/34 with an 11-25, 11 speed drivetrain. Shifting is the best that I've ever had, at both the front and the back.

If you really want it all, you can make an 11 speed triple, using the 11 speed shifter, cassette, chain and a small modification the the cable clamp bolt to increase the 10 speed RD's travel to match the 11 speed cable pull. If you've wanted a 12-27 instead of a 12-25 or 13-29, then you can have it.

[fierte_poser]

The shifting occurs at the upper RD pulley, not the lower one, so IMO (after using a Campy 10 triple exclusively during four seasons), there is no rear shifting penalty. Even if it takes a little longer for a medium or long cage RD to take up chain slack, that does not keep the upper half of the chain from transmitting power.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!

The only front shifting penalty occurs when shifting from the little ring to the middle ring. It's almost always a little slower than the middle to big ring shift, but not a shift that I make real often, so no big deal.

The question is _why_ is the little->middle slower than the middle->big?

[fierte_poser]

A triple will slow you down and it's not because it's heavy or leads to sloppier shifting. What slows you down is that you're going to use the smaller gears because they are there. This translates to climbing in 26/23 at 9 mph as opposed to your 39/23 @ 12 mph.

Then you only ride a 53x11 SS because anything smaller would slow you down? :rolleyes:

[thwart]

I have a couple of bikes with both compacts and triples. Two of my most frequently ridden bikes have a 50/34 compact with a roll-your-own 11/29 (great minds think alike, RudAwkning ;) ), and a standard triple crank 52/40/30 with a 12/25 cassette. Low gear is almost identical between the two. Southwestern WI has many steep (12 to 18 degree grade) fairly short climbs to cope with. And I'm old and weak. :D

Set up well, performance-wise there is almost no discernible difference.

So for me it's the traditional idea... that a triple is geared very similarly to your standard 53/39 crank bike, but then there's that granny chainring in times of need. So you have to make a conscious decision to go to that granny.

With the compact you wind up in some of those same lower gears with no real awareness of it; you're just going up and down the cassette. So, as someone mentioned above, at least for training rides, maybe the triple is indeed the better choice... ?

[Ken Robb]

For an unloaded rig in a mostly flat terrain, the trade off is psychological. A triple will slow you down and it's not because it's heavy or leads to sloppier shifting. What slows you down is that you're going to use the smaller gears because they are there. This translates to climbing in 26/23 at 9 mph as opposed to your 39/23 @ 12 mph.

Not true in all cases. For me it's the difference between 28-29 at 6mph or walking up the hill with a 39-25. :)

[Ti Designs]

I vote for learning how to pedal the bike...


Someone brought up the idea that if you have a stupid low gear, you're going to use it, and then everyone else has to wait for you and you wind up being called turtle for the rest of your life... It's true, and one of the reasons I don't suggest a super low gear for Mt Washington - two hours sucks more than an hour and change, no matter how low your gear is.

Here's my take on triples vs. doubles vs. compact:

I hate compact cranks. If you live in an area where you have steep sustained climbs you might make good use of one, but where I live they're just annoying as hell. In a group ride you can tell the people with compact cranks 'cause they shift in the front about 20 times too often, and their chain is always rubbing against the large ring when they try to use the small ring.

With a double I try to gear the bike to put the rider in the small ring and somewhere in the center of the cassette at their normal flat cruising speed. If the speed goes up or down a little it's a quick shift of the rear derailleur. Then the question becomes how low a gear do you need. If it goes beyond the 39/27 it's time to look at the triple. If you want to get around the problem of having too low a gear, tighten up the cassette - what's wrong with a 30/39/52 crank with a 12-23 or 12-25 cassette?

And just to go against the tide, I run what could be called and enlarged crank (sounds like I should be rushed to the hospital). I run a 44/55 with an 11-21 or 11-23, depending on the hills. As I said, I gear the bike to be somewhere in the middle of the cassette, on the small chainring, while at cruising speed. And the 55x11 gear means that nobody with compact cranks is winning downhill town line sprints...

[97CSI]

Not true in all cases. For me it's the difference between 28-29 at 6mph or walking up the hill with a 39-25. :)Absolutely........but make that 4-6mph, depending on how many days I've been above 5000ft. Triples make the lack of O2 possible for us flatlanders.

[Ahneida Ride]

Me? I ride a Triple . The secret is to make the granny gear so small
that no one even notices it. (Like a 22) :D

My LBS guru rides a triple. I'd like to see any forum member drop
him on a hill.

[paulrad9]

Not true in all cases. For me it's the difference between 28-29 at 6mph or walking up the hill with a 39-25. :)

Ahh, you are correct. I should have said "assuming you can pedal the 39/25" :D

Signed,

Paul, who lives a gagillion miles away from the closest mountain

[thwart]

I run a 44/55 with an 11-21 or 11-23 There we go... most of us are recreational cyclists. When I take my standard crank bikes (53/39, 12/25) on the steeper hilly routes, my knees talk to me---either right then, or the next morning. They don't seem to like high load, low cadence climbs. At least not repetitively.

My goal is to do this well past 80, so I always have that in the back of my mind.

[Pete Serotta]

Ride what works for you - so YOU want to ride again and again. I wish I could ride like SEROTTA STEVE or SEROTTA DAVE :cool: :cool:

[Dave]

The question is _why_ is the little->middle slower than the middle->big?

Part of the reason was probably my use of a 28T little ring. I owned four FSA triple cranks with 53/39/28 chainrings. A Campy FD is designed to shift a 52/42/30 or 50/40/30.

The middle to big shift seemed no different than any double I've owned.

A last comment about lower gear ratios. I've switched to a compact and lost my two lowest gear ratios, but it has NOT made me ride any faster, by forcing me to use a bigger gear. I only used those lowest gears on the steepest sections and I know that I can ride them just as fast, pedaling 85 rpm in a lower gear as I can at 70 rpm in the lowest gear I now have. It has NOT resulted in a speed improvement.

At age 55, I expect to get a little slower every year and that seems to be the case, no matter what gearing I use. I'm now using a power meter just to confirm my mediocrity. I seem to have reached one of those age related slumps where performance just drops off. I used to occasionally feel energetic enough to do a 10 mile climb at a rapid pace, but seldom feel that urge these days. I'll see what this year brings. I'd like to try for a new personal best from Idaho Springs to the top of Mt. Evans, but I'm not real hopeful. Last year I got the flu, the year before it was knee surgery.

[RudAwkning]

I used to look at the guy flying by me on a climb with a triple and say "Bah, he's got a triple. I'm still faster than him." Not anymore. I just see them as smarter than I am. It's like looking at a 7 foot tall basketball player and saying "his slam dunks don't >really< count because he's already so tall". Well, who won? At some point you're just making excuses.

If you need a triple. Get a triple. If the weight or Q factor or shifting make you go slower or are found to be kluge, then go with a double with taller cogs in the rear.

I've climbed most hills in the bay area (Mt Diablo, Mt Tam, Mt Hamilton, Morgan Territory, etc.) on my fixed gear with a 50x19 but still don't shy away from lower gears on my road bikes if they make me go faster/more efficiently. I love my triple :D

And if you're doing long rides (and by long, I mean relative to what your average ride is), you never know how you're body is going to feel further down the road past your point of comfort.

[beungood]

LOL! Ive actually converted toi a triple on my hors while coming backfrom 2 motor vehicle accidents asmy legs are not like they were and I need the gearing. I put a standard campy triple on one (still building it, trying to determine what cassette to run) and found a complete Veloce compact when I consolodated my 3 boxes of bikesickness parts. I am leaning toward an 11-25 Veloce cassette or making oa custom with 11 on the front and a 26/29 for steeps. Still have a 53/39 on my Allez although its an Ultegra 9 I plan on throwing a Chorus of the same chainrings. Anyone want to buy a Ultegra make me an offer..

I get one ounce of lip from those cowboys and I will give them a "Wood Shampoo"




When you stop at you local Salon for a drink and tie it up out front the cowboys with the 10 gallon hats and the A$$less chaps will mock you.

[William]

LOL! Ive actually converted toi a triple on my hors while coming backfrom 2 motor vehicle accidents asmy legs are not like they were and I need the gearing. I put a standard campy triple on one (still building it, trying to determine what cassette to run) and found a complete Veloce compact when I consolodated my 3 boxes of bikesickness parts. I am leaning toward an 11-25 Veloce cassette or making oa custom with 11 on the front and a 26/29 for steeps. Still have a 53/39 on my Allez although its an Ultegra 9 I plan on throwing a Chorus of the same chainrings. Anyone want to buy a Ultegra make me an offer..

I get one ounce of lip from those cowboys and I will give them a "Wood Shampoo"


I might have to take that Ultegra off yer hands there pal. I'm still running a double and i may have a frame for it shortly.


William

[beungood]

Word up homey ! you have first dibs. I am working a trade and the guy has a Chorus I like and I figure I'll have three bikes that I can swap wheels around on. ..

[William]

Word up homey ! you have first dibs. I am working a trade and the guy has a Chorus I like and I figure I'll have three bikes that I can swap wheels around on. ..


Thanks Bro! I have yer wheel down here still.



William

[rwsaunders]

Here is your gear-inch calculator.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears

[Tobias]

I’m curious as to why riders don’t question triple shifting as often when discussing mountain bikes. Practically all MTB are triples and shifting performance isn’t an issue that makes some riders install doubles on a mountain bike, is it? If they work well why not put them to work on the roads? Even if you don’t need the maximum gearing range you can still use a triple to get tighter gearing. And if used properly weight is not a disadvantage in the long run.
The question is _why_ is the little->middle slower than the middle->big?RPS started a thread a while back suggesting that most riders seem to use triples’ granny chainring differently than the middle and large (or doubles), which may partially help to explain the slightly more sluggish shifting from the granny to middle ring. After observing many riders I concur that triple grannies are indeed up-shifted differently, although I’m not sure if that’s what causes the difference. In theory I’d agree it can’t help to upshift against a crossed chain – which I find myself doing too often even though I know better.

The fact that the front derailleur has to perform two separate functions doesn’t help either.

[Ti Designs]

There we go... most of us are recreational cyclists. When I take my standard crank bikes (53/39, 12/25) on the steeper hilly routes, my knees talk to me---either right then, or the next morning. They don't seem to like high load, low cadence climbs. At least not repetitively.


What if I could show you a way to change how you pedal the bike so that you can leverage your upper body weight onto the pedals, shift the muscle usage from the quads to the glutes, and allow you to push bigger gears up hills faster without your knees hurting?


Nah, that's just crazy talk! Get the much lower gears, spend a lot on the best shifting system around. Everyone knows that recreational cyclists and racers have different knees.

[Louis]

What if I could show you a way to change how you pedal the bike so that you can leverage your upper body weight onto the pedals, shift the muscle usage from the quads to the glutes, and allow you to push bigger gears up hills faster without your knees hurting?

We're all listening. :)

[beungood]

hA! I was given the word that I could start riding on my trainer now...


Thanks Bro! I have yer wheel down here still.



William

[Ti Designs]

We're all listening. :)


Damn, it worked too well. I work in a shop and I coach riders, so it would work best for me if I could teach a few people how to push big gears without hurting their knees and sell the others triples and compacts...


The first thing you need to ask yourself is where the destructive force is coming from? Is it the compression of the knee joint under the pressure of the bigger gear? I don't see it, the patela is the top of a floating joint, there has to be some compression somewhere in the system. The connective tissue from the quads (vastus lateralis) goes over the patela, which is your destructive compression, along with range of motion supplied by the crank. Smaller gears reduce the tension on the connective tissue, but some damage is still being done, and you're always at risk of the problem flairing up with any irritation of the knee. A better solution would be to use the glutes to push down the femur instead of the quads extending the tibia from 2:00 to 4:00 (note: the quads extend the tibea from the knee, so the direction of force is 90 degrees out of phase with the direction of travel of the pedal - wrong muscle group to use)

This is where you need to trick your body into using the right muscle group. If you set your bike up on a trainer, put a block under the pedal it's locked at 3:00, and push down - which muscle fires. 99% of the time it's the quads that fire. If you take a second to understand what's going on you'll see that it's clearly the wrong muscle to use. It's pushing in exactly the wrong direction and pushing you back in the seat. OK, now think of how you sit in an office chair - your feet are on the floor just slightly in front of your knees, you have a flat lower back, rotated forward from the hips, your arms are out in front of you but none of your weight is on your keyboard. Where does that upper body weight get transfered to, and how? Everything pivots at the hips, the glutes fire to hold up your torso. You have just as much weight pushing down on your feet as you would have if you fired the quads, but you don't notice the effort 'cause it's a larger muscle group with better leverage. More to the point, it doesn't make your knees hurt. So now we have to transfer that technique to the bike...

[WadePatton]

I’m curious as to why riders don’t question triple shifting as often when discussing mountain bikes. Practically all MTB are triples and shifting performance...
100% of my mountain bikes don't shift and 'bout 50% of the folks I ride with (outside of racing) are shiftless...

So we don't talk 'bout it. ;)

MOF if I _had_ to have a geared ATB tomorrow, it would only have one chainring.

And mebbe that's why shifting my triple roadie has never been an issue as I "grew up" on triple-equipped ATB's.

[Tobias]

100% of my mountain bikes don't shift and 'bout 50% of the folks I ride with (outside of racing) are shiftless...

So we don't talk 'bout it. ;) Raises an interesting point: What’s easier to live with all around, a single/fixed MTB or road bike?

I can’t imagine riding a single or fixed on the roads where occasional hills go up to 20 percent – even if limited to short ones. Unless I got off the bike on the steep stuff (anything above 10 percent), I’d need gearing so low that flats and downhills would not be fun for me. I guess it comes down to terrain one rides.

For me I’ll stick with standard doubles and triples. If I had to limit myself to one bike, it’d be a triple for certain.

[Bob Ross]

The first thing you need to ask yourself is where the destructive force is coming from? Is it the compression of the knee joint under the pressure of the bigger gear? I don't see it, the patela is the top of a floating joint, there has to be some compression somewhere in the system. The connective tissue from the quads (vastus lateralis) goes over the patela, which is your destructive compression, along with range of motion supplied by the crank. Smaller gears reduce the tension on the connective tissue, but some damage is still being done, and you're always at risk of the problem flairing up with any irritation of the knee. A better solution would be to use the glutes to push down the femur instead of the quads extending the tibia from 2:00 to 4:00 (note: the quads extend the tibea from the knee, so the direction of force is 90 degrees out of phase with the direction of travel of the pedal - wrong muscle group to use)

This is where you need to trick your body into using the right muscle group. If you set your bike up on a trainer, put a block under the pedal it's locked at 3:00, and push down - which muscle fires. 99% of the time it's the quads that fire. If you take a second to understand what's going on you'll see that it's clearly the wrong muscle to use. It's pushing in exactly the wrong direction and pushing you back in the seat. OK, now think of how you sit in an office chair - your feet are on the floor just slightly in front of your knees, you have a flat lower back, rotated forward from the hips, your arms are out in front of you but none of your weight is on your keyboard. Where does that upper body weight get transfered to, and how? Everything pivots at the hips, the glutes fire to hold up your torso. You have just as much weight pushing down on your feet as you would have if you fired the quads, but you don't notice the effort 'cause it's a larger muscle group with better leverage. More to the point, it doesn't make your knees hurt. So now we have to transfer that technique to the bike...


Intriguing... and I wish it were true! (I tend to prefer pushing big gears, but I also suffer from chondramalacia patella, osteo-arthritis, and crepitus in both knees plus a minor tear in the medial meniscus of my left knee...so while I'd love to rock a 55/11 with you, I'd be rocking a wheelchair the next day!)

But something about your post rings false. Not wanting to call BS without something beyond a gut feeling in my defense, I ran your post past my wife, a licensed massage therapist with a background in exercise physiology. She made the following observations:

"When you stand up from a chair your feet are flat on the ground; you're pushing from your heels so your glutes are engaged (but quads are also; any older person with knee problems can tell you it hurts their knees to stand up after sitting for a long time). When we ride we push with the ball of our foot. Try standing up from a chair on the ball of your feet and you'll use far more quads.

When you push down on the pedal the knee is extending as well as the hip. The quads extend the knee, the glutes extend the hip. Basically, seems to me you can't just use one of these muscle groups and I would think doing so would not be very efficient.

One other thing: I always walk up steps with a flat foot precisely to target my glutes (I push out of the heel). But [my cycling coach] told me to use the ball of my foot when climbing stairs to better approximate cycling, which uses the quads.

Some cycling coaches tell you when you climb to slide back in the saddle & push through the heel on the downstroke. That definitely engages the glutes more. I think the point is to give the quads a rest or to engage *more* muscle groups on the harder efforts. But I don't think you can ride that way all the time."


Any thoughts? Like I said, I'd love to find a way to climb in a bigger gear, because I'm riding a compact crank now and it requires too much shifting of the FD during flat rides at tempo, would be great if I could switch to a standard double.

[Skrawny]

It's all in how you ride.
I only recently moved away from my beloved Northern California hills. I started riding with a triple, but when I got my Legend I went to a double and didn't miss the lower gears at all. They were too low. When I am at that point I am usually standing.

I recently did a hilly ride on a borrowed triple and really didn't like having to switch back and forth between middle and little rings on a hill.

But, like I said, it's all in how you ride. If you like triples, stick with em!

I guess his question was about shifting . . . so I'll just sit down now...

-s

[Ti Designs]

"[I]When you stand up from a chair your feet are flat on the ground; you're pushing from your heels so your glutes are engaged (but quads are also; any older person with knee problems can tell you it hurts their knees to stand up after sitting for a long time). When we ride we push with the ball of our foot. Try standing up from a chair on the ball of your feet and you'll use far more quads.

In standing up from a chair you're including balance into the big picture. I use the example of staying seated and using upper body weight and glutes. Given the right position to do this, most people can hang their center of gravity over their feet and still keep their quads relaxed. I don't know many people, myself included who can stand up while keeping their quads relaxed - pushing off any part of my foot, or using any hip angle.

There is this thing called muscle mapping - learning how to control contractions of specific muscle groups. It's something I spend a fair amount of time on at the gym because I use individual machines to overload specific muscles within the same range of motion used in cycling. I use the inverted leg sled to overload the glutes, there is a very specific technique to it, and it's hard to mistake right from wrong. Do it right and the amount of weight you can push is scary - I'm limited to 950 pounds 'cause that's all the thing will fit. Do it wrong and your quads and knees will tell you.

As for engaging more muscle groups, the whole point of my pedal stroke class is to teach people how to only fire muscles where they have mechanical advantage on the cranks. The biggest limitation on any muscle is duty cycle. Use the quads for 30% of the pedal stroke, just kicking over the top and you have 70% recovery time. If you try to fire the quads from just before the top all the way to the bottom, you wind up with a 60% duty cycle and at best 40% recovery (to say nothing of not being able to use the hamstrings effectively). So, you've gone from an aerobic (sustainable) state to and anaerobic state (while complaining that your quads are burning - with good reason). The key to a powerful, sustainable, efficient pedal stroke is learning how limit the use of each muscle group to where it's most effective. If you don't buy that, try pulling all the spark plugs off your car's engine and reconnect them in random order and see how she runs...

And for what it's worth, I have a tear in my lateral meniscus. I've known about if for about 5 years now. I'll do something about it if it would just start bothering me. I've been using the 55T chainring for 2 seasons, I put 4000 miles on a fixed gear each winter, I push half a ton on the leg press... I've worked with lots of clients who also have knee issues and a change in technique tends to work.

[Tobias]

In standing up from a chair you're including balance into the big picture. I use the example of staying seated and using upper body weight and glutes. Given the right position to do this, most people can hang their center of gravity over their feet and still keep their quads relaxed. I don't know many people, myself included who can stand up while keeping their quads relaxed - pushing off any part of my foot, or using any hip angle.I'm not sure you'd want to even if you could. Sounds like a great way to damage the knee joint.

[Skrawny]

I'm not sure you'd want to even if you could. Sounds like a great way to damage the knee joint.

Couldn't happen, the quads are the only muscles which extend the leg at the knee joint. You can't stand up without extending your leg.
-s

[39cross]

Why is it axiomatic that double rings shift better?I can't say why, but I've been riding Shimano triples for the past several years and they shift just fine. Ramps and pins help I guess. I use the granny when I cycle for a week in Vermont each summer, otherwise it goes unused. It's just another tool in the toolbox, I take it out when I need it, otherwise it doesn't cause me any issues.

When I learn to use my glutes and can ride Mt. Washington in my 39x23 then I will abandon my triple. Maybe this year? :)

[fiamme red]

And the 55x11 gear means that nobody with compact cranks is winning downhill town line sprints...Maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but I've never been part of a downhill town line sprint. What prize do you get if you win one?

[fiamme red]

There is this thing called muscle mapping - learning how to control contractions of specific muscle groups. It's something I spend a fair amount of time on at the gym because I use individual machines to overload specific muscles within the same range of motion used in cycling. I use the inverted leg sled to overload the glutes, there is a very specific technique to it, and it's hard to mistake right from wrong. Do it right and the amount of weight you can push is scary - I'm limited to 950 pounds 'cause that's all the thing will fit. Do it wrong and your quads and knees will tell you.Does leg pressing heavy weights help one to ride faster?

[Ti Designs]

Does leg pressing heavy weights help one to ride faster?


More along the lines of fatigue resistance. If the muscle fibers can withstand that kind of tension without tearing (which is what you feel after every weight increase and a few hard speedwork sessions) then you'll recover faster and be better day after day. I can't see ever delivering 500 pounds of force to a pedal...

[Tobias]

Couldn't happen, the quads are the only muscles which extend the leg at the knee joint. You can't stand up without extending your leg.-sFrom within yes, but nothing keeps the joint from being extended by outside forces and moments, right? That's what I was referring to.

In theory a person could as Ti described if they balanced perfectly while keeping the lower leg vertical. In practice (and in reality) a person would have to use just enough muscle to balance, but not to lift the body off the chair ATMO. Again, in "theory" this could be made possible by placing the femurs in bending while shifting the person's CG perfectly over the lower legs so as to not need the quads to extend the lower legs. I'm saying that in this "theoretical" exercise the lower legs would just carry the persons weight in pure compression.

Getting back to my previous point -- even if you taught yourself to do this, it could easily injure the knee joints because they are not made to carry a load in that direction without the quads and hamstrings applying a force to keep the joint stable.

It's not going to happen anyway, so I'm not going to worry about it. It's not normal human motion.

[Dave]

I just thought of another common misconception. If torque from the glutes is used to create pedaling forece, then long femurs would be a disadvantage, since torque at the hip joint divided by femur length would equal force to apply to the pedal.

That said, I'm trying to use my glutes more and relax the quads on the my long mountain climbs. Even though I'm currently able to push a bigger gear, I'm no faster for it. The power meter does not lie. Power = torque times cadence.

[Dekonick]

What if I could show you a way to change how you pedal the bike so that you can leverage your upper body weight onto the pedals, shift the muscle usage from the quads to the glutes, and allow you to push bigger gears up hills faster without your knees hurting?


Nah, that's just crazy talk! Get the much lower gears, spend a lot on the best shifting system around. Everyone knows that recreational cyclists and racers have different knees.

They do have different knees. Repeated use, proper training, and time will build avascular tissue (ie - that connective stuff that holds knees together) BUT if your life job doesnt allow you the same time to train, your knees will be at greater risk for injury - period. NO matter what technique you use to climb. Your technique will help - but no matter what I can gurantee that pro's do have different knees than the average joe cyclist, and also aren't hauling around as much extra weight. Having said that, proper technique and training will allow you to push bigger gears without injury. I do not disagree with you there. I also say there is room in the world for tripples.

:beer:

[giordana93]

I just thought of another common misconception. If torque from the glutes is used to create pedaling forece, then long femurs would be a disadvantage, since torque at the hip joint divided by femur length would equal force to apply to the pedal.

That said, I'm trying to use my glutes more and relax the quads on the my long mountain climbs. Even though I'm currently able to push a bigger gear, I'm no faster for it. The power meter does not lie. Power = torque times cadence.
re: your first point, that would assume that you have the same muscle doing the work, which is not the case
as for the second point, it's not usually my quads or glutes that give out on a climb, it's my ticker; I think the point is that the glutes are a larger group of muscles, certainly much stronger, and so on.

as this is massive thread drift, I'm gonna start a new thread on this, as I've been dicking around with bike fit the last year or two, especially a more forward and high saddle position (easy to get on top of a gear) vs. a pushed back (easy to recruit glutes/hams) and necessarily lower saddle and it most certainly has an effect on pedaling technique. what say ye?

[fierte_poser]

This thread has done some major drift, which doesn't bother me, but to go back to the OP:

No one seems to have given a physical explanation for why a double would shift any better than a triple. People have chimed in to say: "My double shifts better than my triple," and, "My triple shifts as good as my double," but correlation does not imply causation. :)

The only think I can think of that might actually effect shift quality is the longer side plates of the triple FD. This could lead to more flex in the FD during shifts and hence the quality of the shift could suffer compared to a double setup.

Out back, I can't think of anything that would materially effect shift quality. As Dave noted, the shift happens at the upper jockey pulley. Since the upper jockey pulley is at the same location on small, med, and large cage derailleurs, there is nothing about the triple setup that equals bad shifting.

Unless someone wants to chime in and correct me! :D

[Ti Designs]

It's not normal human motion.

And I'm not a normal human.

[Elefantino]

Not true in all cases. For me it's the difference between 28-29 at 6mph or walking up the hill with a 39-25. :)
Yeah ... what the hell is a 12 mph climb, anyway?

[martinrjensen]

If you want to talk about smooth shifting, set your double up with a 42-52 double and you will see just how nice front shifting can become. Those rings shift virtually as precice as your rear derailleur would. Of course you pretty much lost your lower gears.
I don't care for compacts for the reason that they have too wide a gear range and there is no way they can shift as quickly or precicely as say a 42/52 or even a 39/52.
Actually I would be happy to leave my 39 on the triple and change the big ring to a 50 but I have been having trouble finding just the one ring.

I like smooth shifting and since I don't race, but ride for fitness, if I got to work harder going up a hill, so much the better. But there are some hills here that I would just not attempt with a double. I like to excersize on short steep hills and we got a lot of them here in Seattle that I would not attempt without my triple. I think the fuzzyness in shifting has more to do with the tooth spread than being a double or a triple.

I do take issue with the comment about riding up a hill at 9mph in a triple vs 12 mph in a double. assuming those numbers were just grabbed out of the air as an example, that is a huge difference (9 to 12 mph) and I really doubt that you would be following that example very long. More likely, the double, you would have a slower cadence and probably just go up the hill at a slower speed. I mean, ya either got the legs or ya don't, ya can't trick yourself....

[WadePatton]

Raises an interesting point: What’s easier to live with all around, a single/fixed MTB or road bike?

I can’t imagine riding a single or fixed on the roads where occasional hills go up to 20 percent – even if limited to short ones. Unless I got off the bike on the steep stuff (anything above 10 percent), I’d need gearing so low that flats and downhills would not be fun for me. I guess it comes down to terrain one rides.
...

in order to keep the scope of this thread as broad as possible (and to hide from the OT threads).

Same trade-off for the road as the trails. It's just that the road generally offers much less undulating topography. AND whilst you're spinning that too-leetle gear in the woods, you still have trees and rocks and roots to contend with) I don't ride my fixed on the steep stuff--mainly because while walking up is no big deal, smoking the brakes going down just plain sucks. I have a series of rollers out here that are perfect for 42x15 and my level of accomplishment. I ride through with absolutely FLYING feet at the bottoms, and find it "easy" enough to pound out the upsides. I think I'll love a flip/flop when I get 'round to that. Run a taller gear on the fixed side and have coasting on the other. Or go nuts with a double freewheel...but then it's easy to go too far.

Hellfire, I just realized that all the doubles I've had were DT shifted! :banana:

Speed work and hills starts next week. I'll come back and review the knees/quads/glutes stuff then.

[Grant McLean]

No one seems to have given a physical explanation for why a double would shift any better than a triple.

If we're talking about the "stigma" a triple has, don't look for a technical explanation.

First, no choice should have a stigma if it's useful. So if you use your triple,
and ride where it's hilly, go for it. But I think there is a tradition in cycling
of the 'racy' side of sport being about having just what you need, and no more.
Tires narrow without being too narrow, gearing low enough, but not too low,
bars wide enough, but not too wide, bike light enough, but not too light,
tires hard enough, but not too hard....

it's all about finding the spot where you have only what you need, and no more.
Obviously, there are other cultural parts to cycling other than racing.
So if you want to carry everything you own with you at all times,
go for it.

-g

[39cross]

So if you want to carry everything you own with you at all times, go for it.

-g?

[Elefantino]

If we're talking about the "stigma" a triple has, don't look for a technical explanation.

First, no choice should have a stigma if it's useful.
Several pros, including winner Roberto Heras, used triples on Angliru back in 2002, I believe.

Oh wait. He doped

[Grant McLean]

?

If you don't need one, why use one?
Doesn't that make sense?

-g

[martinrjensen]

This thread has done some major drift, which doesn't bother me, but to go back to the OP:

No one seems to have given a physical explanation for why a double would shift any better than a triple. People have chimed in to say: "My double shifts better than my triple," and, "My triple shifts as good as my double," but correlation does not imply causation. :)

The only think I can think of that might actually effect shift quality is the longer side plates of the triple FD. This could lead to more flex in the FD during shifts and hence the quality of the shift could suffer compared to a double setup.

Out back, I can't think of anything that would materially effect shift quality. As Dave noted, the shift happens at the upper jockey pulley. Since the upper jockey pulley is at the same location on small, med, and large cage derailleurs, there is nothing about the triple setup that equals bad shifting.

Unless someone wants to chime in and correct me! :D
I think the thing that affects shift quality is related to how many teeth you are trying to go from and or to. As I said in my later post, shifting fro 42 to 52 just snaps into place. 39 to 52 doesnot just snap in to place

[sloji]

If we're talking about the "stigma" a triple has, don't look for a technical explanation.

First, no choice should have a stigma if it's useful. So if you use your triple,
and ride where it's hilly, go for it. But I think there is a tradition in cycling
of the 'racy' side of sport being about having just what you need, and no more.
Tires narrow without being too narrow, gearing low enough, but not too low,
bars wide enough, but not too wide, bike light enough, but not too light,
tires hard enough, but not too hard....

it's all about finding the spot where you have only what you need, and no more.
Obviously, there are other cultural parts to cycling other than racing.
So if you want to carry everything you own with you at all times,
go for it.

-g

I like them words.

[Tobias]

If you don't need one, why use one?
Doesn't that make sense?

-gNeed is relative because it can be more than an extra low gear to handle a tough climb. Unfortunately that's the way triples were first marketed.

Most of us tend to view triples as a way to increase gearing range, but we could also use them to achieve tighter gearing, couldn’t we?

Maybe if Shimano or Campy made a racing triple with tighter gearing at the chainrings and marketed it for greater racing performance more riders would be drawn to triples.

Cranks with 53-42-34 chainrings may be seen as offering a compact's climbing ability, a double's top end, and a great middle for cruising on the flats. I’d take one over a 50-34 compact any day.

[fierte_poser]

If we're talking about the "stigma" a triple has, don't look for a technical explanation.

First, no choice should have a stigma if it's useful. So if you use your triple,
and ride where it's hilly, go for it. But I think there is a tradition in cycling
of the 'racy' side of sport being about having just what you need, and no more.
Tires narrow without being too narrow, gearing low enough, but not too low,
bars wide enough, but not too wide, bike light enough, but not too light,
tires hard enough, but not too hard....

it's all about finding the spot where you have only what you need, and no more.
Obviously, there are other cultural parts to cycling other than racing.
So if you want to carry everything you own with you at all times,
go for it.

-g

I feel ya.

[flickwet]

Need is relative because it can be more than an extra low gear to handle a tough climb. Unfortunately that's the way triples were first marketed.

Most of us tend to view triples as a way to increase gearing range, but we could also use them to achieve tighter gearing, couldn’t we?

Maybe if Shimano or Campy made a racing triple with tighter gearing at the chainrings and marketed it for greater racing performance more riders would be drawn to triples.

Cranks with 53-42-34 chainrings may be seen as offering a compact's climbing ability, a double's top end, and a great middle for cruising on the flats. I’d take one over a 50-34 compact any day.
Racing triple! a 52 42 and little one.

[Ken Robb]

Need is relative because it can be more than an extra low gear to handle a tough climb. Unfortunately that's the way triples were first marketed.

Most of us tend to view triples as a way to increase gearing range, but we could also use them to achieve tighter gearing, couldn’t we?

Maybe if Shimano or Campy made a racing triple with tighter gearing at the chainrings and marketed it for greater racing performance more riders would be drawn to triples.

Cranks with 53-42-34 chainrings may be seen as offering a compact's climbing ability, a double's top end, and a great middle for cruising on the flats. I’d take one over a 50-34 compact any day.

I think if you get a 110 bcd triple you could get gearing with spacing like you want. There are LOTS of different rings available.

[Tobias]

I think if you get a 110 bcd triple you could get gearing with spacing like you want. There are LOTS of different rings available.It can be done with a standard Shimano triple with 130 BC. Or a Campy too. Mainly replace the granny ring with something useful for very strong riders like a 34 T (or whatever the rider needed) which would make the front end close ratio and "also" allow the cassette to be a little tighter than otherwise. Actually, I don’t know how big a granny ring you’d be able to install before it would interfere with the derailleur, but it’s got to be bigger than a 30 T. And if the derailleur was designed for the larger rings, it should shift even better.

Mostly I was referring to the "image" of the triple as being one associated with gearing for those who can't climb, are slow, old, etc.... Much of this image was set by initial marketing which I see as unfortunate and now limiting. ;)

[palincss]

Need is relative because it can be more than an extra low gear to handle a tough climb. Unfortunately that's the way triples were first marketed.

Most of us tend to view triples as a way to increase gearing range, but we could also use them to achieve tighter gearing, couldn’t we?

Maybe if Shimano or Campy made a racing triple with tighter gearing at the chainrings and marketed it for greater racing performance more riders would be drawn to triples.



Just how tight gearing do people need, anyway? Are 1-tooth gaps not close enough?

Perhaps what you have in mind might be more clear if you provided a example of a tight triple and compared it with one or more common double patterns.

It's possible you may be advocating a gearing pattern jbay wrote about in Bicycling magazine some 15 years ago, that he used on a PAC tour.

[Tobias]

Just how tight gearing do people need, anyway? Are 1-tooth gaps not close enough?

Perhaps what you have in mind might be more clear if you provided a example of a tight triple and compared it with one or more common double patterns.

It's possible you may be advocating a gearing pattern jbay wrote about in Bicycling magazine some 15 years ago, that he used on a PAC tour.To make it a useful comparison, we’d have to compare similar gearing range. Since I ride mostly 9-speed Shimano let’s compare these two:

53-39 with a 12-27 cassette (standard double)
vs.
52-42-30 with an 11-21 or 12-21 cassette (standard triple set up for stronger rider or flatter terrain)

The triple has approximately the same range but tighter gearing and also provides for the opportunity to keep a straighter chainline more often that the double.

What I think would work even better for me would be:

53-42-34 with a 12-23 (versus 12-21, particularly if I upgraded from 9 to 10 speed).


I guess what I’m questioning indirectly is that at some point an extra chainring which extends range while also making for tighter gearing may be better than adding more cogs. If at all possible, I’d like to keep this at a conceptual level rather than start splitting hairs with a bunch of gear-inches based on one individual’s needs carried out to three decimals. :beer:

BTW, I have no idea what pattern jbay wrote about, so please enlighten me. ;)

[Bob Ross]

Maybe if Shimano or Campy made a racing triple with tighter gearing at the chainrings and marketed it for greater racing performance more riders would be drawn to triples.

+1
I've long contended that if there was a Record or DuraAce (or Cannondale Hollowgram!) triple crank that didn't have an exorbitant weight penalty I'd be all over it like frat boys on a nitrous tank.

And I hadn't even considered the idea of using a triple to allow for for tighter spacing of the cassette, but that's a pretty appealing idea. Hmm...

[fiamme red]

I've long contended that if there was a Record or DuraAce (or Cannondale Hollowgram!) triple crank that didn't have an exorbitant weight penalty I'd be all over it like frat boys on a nitrous tank.As it is, what's the weight penalty of a triple compared to a double? 60 or 70 grams? Not exorbitant in my book.

[SadieKate]

I've always loved this comparison of weight between double and triple cranks sets. I know, I know! I'll put on a double crank to save weight and then put on a platter-sized cassette.

And you get really snappy shifting with those widely spaced cassettes . . . .

The weight argument applied generically is even more silly since model to model they all vary.

[39cross]

If you don't need one, why use one?
Doesn't that make sense?

-gTo take the aesthetic argument to the next level, shouldn't many people be using single chainrings instead of doubles, since they don't need all of those gears? And 5 speed - or 3 speed - or single cogs - because they may be extraneous - why carry everything you own if you don't need it?

Alas however it's the poor triple that gets all the abuse. But thank goodness for the triple, the discussion will continue to provide fine entertainment until the end of time, or until the continuously variable transmission replaces the current drive train, whichever comes first. ;)

[fiamme red]

To take the aesthetic argument to the next level, shouldn't many people be using single chainrings instead of doubles, since they don't need all of those gears? And 5 speed - or 3 speed - or single cogs - because they may be extraneous - why carry everything you own if you don't need it?People who buy "racing" bikes want their bikes to look like what racers, not tourists, ride. Racers use double chainrings. If a 53/39 double with a 11-23 cassette is standard among pros, lots of people will use that gearing even if it isn't optimal for them.

[RPS]

Actually, I don’t know how big a granny ring you’d be able to install before it would interfere with the derailleur, but it’s got to be bigger than a 30 T.In looking at my Shimano 9-speed triple, there should be no real concern there. I haven't tried it, but I'd bet it would clear a 36T by a mile. Certainly anything anyone would reasonably want to try. ;)

[RPS]

And I hadn't even considered the idea of using a triple to allow for for tighter spacing of the cassette, but that's a pretty appealing idea. Hmm...I've been using a triple with an 11-21 9-speed cassette for years. Works great for me even on the flats because the middle gear (physically the 42/15) gives me 20 MPH at 90 RPM. I hardly ever get out of the middle ring in my area, and when I go to the Hill Country I don't have to make any changes unless my legs get too tired (at which point I install a 12-27 wheel).

[RPS]

I've always loved this comparison of weight between double and triple cranks sets. I know, I know! I'll put on a double crank to save weight and then put on a platter-sized cassette.+1
When I looked at it on the old 9-speed, the difference was under 100 grams when the cassette was taken into account.
Besides, when climbing (which is about the worse case scenario against weight), this difference (same as about 3-ounces of water in a bottle) can be offset in theory by improved mechanical efficiency due to chainline alone.

IMHO it comes down to Q-factor, image/coolness, and poor shifting (particularly when upshifting out of the granny ring prematurely).

[palincss]

To make it a useful comparison, we’d have to compare similar gearing range. Since I ride mostly 9-speed Shimano let’s compare these two:

53-39 with a 12-27 cassette (standard double)
vs.
52-42-30 with an 11-21 or 12-21 cassette (standard triple set up for stronger rider or flatter terrain)

The triple has approximately the same range but tighter gearing and also provides for the opportunity to keep a straighter chainline more often that the double.

What I think would work even better for me would be:

53-42-34 with a 12-23 (versus 12-21, particularly if I upgraded from 9 to 10 speed).


I guess what I’m questioning indirectly is that at some point an extra chainring which extends range while also making for tighter gearing may be better than adding more cogs. If at all possible, I’d like to keep this at a conceptual level rather than start splitting hairs with a bunch of gear-inches based on one individual’s needs carried out to three decimals. :beer:

BTW, I have no idea what pattern jbay wrote about, so please enlighten me. ;)

I'm hoping John will see this and chime in. As I recall the details (and remember, it's been around 15 years since i saw the article) he had a very tight cassette, something like 12-21, coupled with wider spaced chainrings. I think his goal was the same as yours, to provide very tight gearing while using the triple to extend the range.

[sg8357]

On my Atlantis I had a 46/34/24, two sets of wheels, skinny tires with
a 12-23 and fat tires with a 12-32. The tight cassette was great on windy
rides. The 12-32 for touring.

My roady bike has compact triple, 48/36/24, 48/36 is a much less clunky
shift, the 24 is a bailout. The front shifting is quiet and fast with
Suntour bar-cons, a little slower and noiser with Ergo, but still fine.

If you have a 10 speed, how about the old rando setup of 46/28 ?

[Bob Ross]

As it is, what's the weight penalty of a triple compared to a double? 60 or 70 grams? Not exorbitant in my book.

No, you're correct:
Campy Super Record is 695g, triple is 788g.
Shimano 7950 is 625g, 7803 triple is 680g.

And yet...my wife & I have identical bikes (same frame, wheels, & components), except that hers has an Ultegra triple and mine has an FSA compact double. Oh, and hers is a 50cm frame and mine is 58cm. So hers should weigh approx the same if not less, right? And yet either one of us could easily tell one bike from the other blindfolded 20 out of 20 tries, simply by lifting it; the weight difference is that obvious. I got no explanation for it, but there it is.


Besides, when climbing (which is about the worse case scenario against weight), this difference (same as about 3-ounces of water in a bottle) can be offset in theory by improved mechanical efficiency due to chainline alone.

Not to totally derail this thread, but fwiw any time I get involved in Lighter = Better discussions, I try to make the point that no, Lighter != Faster ...but that by definition Lighter = Lighter, and sometimes you just want a lighter bike, period. Especially when you're lifting it up to hang on the ceiling hook, or when carrying it up/down stairs.

[palincss]

Not to totally derail this thread, but fwiw any time I get involved in Lighter = Better discussions, I try to make the point that no, Lighter != Faster ...but that by definition Lighter = Lighter, and sometimes you just want a lighter bike, period. Especially when you're lifting it up to hang on the ceiling hook, or when carrying it up/down stairs.

Does 55 grams make much difference when it comes to carrying a bike up and down the stairs, or hanging it from a ceiling hook? There's a difference between being able to discern the difference in weight and it actually making a difference in terms of lifting it, and I would guess that 2 ounces (slightly more than 55 grams) would not make a difference in that sense.

[Ti Designs]

When posting anything about weight, I feel it would help if you started by listing your own height and weight. I mean, if you're 5'3" and weigh 94 pounds that 100 grams means something. If you're 5'8" and 240 pounds I think you're trying to take weight off the wrong thing.

[RPS]

No, you're correct:
Campy Super Record is 695g, triple is 788g.
Shimano 7950 is 625g, 7803 triple is 680g.
.......snipped...............
Not to totally derail this thread, but fwiw any time I get involved in Lighter = Better discussions, I try to make the point that no, Lighter != Faster ...but that by definition Lighter = Lighter, and sometimes you just want a lighter bike, period. Especially when you're lifting it up to hang on the ceiling hook, or when carrying it up/down stairs.The total weight is indeed in that range -- more or less. You'd have to add the heavier derailleurs, maybe brifters, and a few chain links :rolleyes: ,then subtract for a lighter cassette. Overall it's going to be about 1/4 pound or less -- not much for me since I just came back from a 100K ride 4.8 pounds lighter than when I left the house.

As for efficiency, I rode a perfectly level route with very high winds where my speed was as slow as 12 MPH and highs mostly in the 25 MPH range. I normally don't use my granny ring but today when going 12 MPH I decided to drop it in the 30T rather than grind the 42/21 with the chain crossed. By using all three rings I was never more than 2 or 3 cogs off perfect chain alignment -- mostly no more than 1 or 2 cogs.

I don't know what that translates to in mechanical efficiency gains, but it's far more than the rolling resistance associated with 1/4 pound of weight. Today the triple in “theory” was faster for me than a double. Of course the differences are so small it would be difficult to measure. ;)

Bottom line is that there is little if any penalty. :beer:

[goonster]

If I had to choose between

a) Gears I use 95% of the time available without a front shift (93" - 42")

and

b) Having a wide range of gearing (30" low gear, 105+" high gears)

I would choose a).

But:

I don't have to choose. A triple gives me both (and a compact double gives me neither).

[thwart]

People who buy "racing" bikes want their bikes to look like what racers, not tourists, ride. Racers use double chainrings. If a 53/39 double with a 11-23 cassette is standard among pros, lots of people will use that gearing even if it isn't optimal for them. Boy, that just hits the nail smack dab on the head.

Most folks living in a somehat hilly area are likely best served by a triple---as long as they aren't sitting in the granny up every little rise.

[SadieKate]

When posting anything about weight, I feel it would help if you started by listing your own height and weight. I mean, if you're 5'3" and weigh 94 pounds that 100 grams means something. If you're 5'8" and 240 pounds I think you're trying to take weight off the wrong thing.
Exactly.

I mountain bike with a guy who is 6'6" or maybe 6'7" ( I can't tell from my lowly position) and he's always going on and on about the weights of various parts of his bike. I finally told him to think about the weight of my bike compared to me and then do the same for himself -- and then stow the topic forever. He had the wrong audience.

[Ray]

If I had to choose between

a) Gears I use 95% of the time available without a front shift (93" - 42")

and

b) Having a wide range of gearing (30" low gear, 105+" high gears)

I would choose a).

But:

I don't have to choose. A triple gives me both (and a compact double gives me neither).
I come pretty damn close with a compact double. I have a useful range of 104-48 and can push it to about 41 if I go up to the next to largest cog. The trade-off is somewhat larger gaps between gears than some would be comfortable with, but I've spent enough time on a fixie to be pretty comfortable at a variety of cadences, so it doesn't bother me. And I have a low all the way down to 27 on the little ring which'll get up damn near anything, even when exhausted. This is with a 46-34 up front and a mtb 12-34 in back. This is my preferred setup on my road bike and I use a similar 46-36 and slap a 24 tooth granny on a triple version on my touring bike. On the road bike, I use the lowest two gears almost never (my normal low is about 35 inches), but not quite never, and its nice to have them for that rare occasion. And the wide range cassette is what gives me that big useful range on the big ring. On the touring bike, I almost never use the granny ring, but again, no harm in having it and its been invaluable on occasion.

There are trade-offs everywhere. You just have to figure out which ones work for you. I don't care about a few ounces. I used to be extremely happy on a 23 pound bike and still would be, but my current main ride is about 17-18, so that's more than light enough. Hell, it feels weightless every time I ride it until I get to a steep enough hill, at which point I don't feel weightless. I ride a racing bike, with Ray's gears.

-Ray

[beungood]

How is it done?

What if I could show you a way to change how you pedal the bike so that you can leverage your upper body weight onto the pedals, shift the muscle usage from the quads to the glutes, and allow you to push bigger gears up hills faster without your knees hurting?


Nah, that's just crazy talk! Get the much lower gears, spend a lot on the best shifting system around. Everyone knows that recreational cyclists and racers have different knees.

[fiamme red]

How is it done?http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2718929334_a5f429c723.jpg

[beungood]

:hello: :hello: