|Double v.s. Triple ChainRing||scopestuff2|
Sep 8, 2003 12:56 PM
|I know this is hashed out alot on the net. But, I'm still having trouble with the decision.
On the one hand, a triple provides much greater range and I have it with me when I need it. The double .... well ... I'm somewhat used to it and reasonable comfortable.
Is there any good reason for a recreational/fitness ride to not want a triple ? I have a sense that I would try more challenging rides if I had a triple.
Also, if I wanted to ride in a Triathlon, or local TimeTrail, would I be humialted for showing up with a triple ? As a nubie I don't know the bike culture very well ... I just understand that there is some machismo about doubles and racing.
Your thoughts please ....
Thank you .
|re: Double v.s. Triple ChainRing||lotterypick|
Sep 8, 2003 1:14 PM
|Get the triple and ride more.
Forget the Tri issue because even they acknowledge that all sorts of people are doing tri's not just elite athletes.
|Even I'm getting tired of this, and it's my favorite subject...||retro|
Sep 8, 2003 1:50 PM
|I've been grinding on people to leave their triples alone for about 10 years. There simply aren't any disadvantages to having that little ring on there (not that Shimano's standard 30-tooth granny is very helpful), and when you need it, even if it's rarely, it's nice to have.
Only you can tell if you need the small ring regularly. To me, at least, how the thing LOOKS shouldn't be a consideration at all. If you check out the gears people around you are actually riding in (assuming you're not hanging out exclusively with tri geeks), you'll realize that very few of them go anywhere near the small end of the cassette when they're on the big ring. I've been riding a long time, and I'm fairly strong, and I've never found a situation my 46-36-26 crankset and 12-28 cassette can't handle. Doesn't embarrass me a bit.
|re: Double v.s. Triple ChainRing||lyleseven|
Sep 8, 2003 8:56 PM
|I use my small chain ring on my triple very, very seldom. However, when I do need it, I really need it. I live around hills. I have had doubles and triples. I wouldn't be caught without a triple now. I was once told by a wise local bike shop owner, "When in doubt, go with the triple."|
|Consider a compact crankset....||tirider|
Sep 8, 2003 11:41 PM
|... I recently purchased an FSA compact crankset in 34/50 teeth and I'm very happy with this as a viable alternative to the other two options......http://www.fullspeedahead.com/|
|Consider a compact crankset....||lithiapark|
Sep 9, 2003 5:45 AM
|I agree. I just put the FSA compact drive 50/34 on an FSA Platinum Pro Ti BB, ISIS drive, with 12/27 cassette. A standard Ultegra front derailleur shifts it fine. The 34-27 granny gear is almost exactly what the 30-25 gearing is on my bike with a triple. The FSA crankset looks nice, and weighs almost exactlly the same as the Record Carbon crankset (520gm) and costs 1/2 as much. Dura Ace triple cranksets are nearly 200gm heavier.|
|seems like too much of a comprimise for my taste||wolfereeno|
Sep 11, 2003 11:08 PM
|I'm not embarrased to ride my triple - especially when I'm doing the passing!
I like to spin kind of fast on hills. Sometimes I need to drop all the way down to my 30-27 if I'm a little spent. But I also can crank hard and the 50-12 is too small for when I want to fly. Your combination is just too much of a comprimise IMO.
If there are any halfway decent hills near by, I just can't see not having a triple.