|Triples: anyone sick of them?||TBuddha|
Nov 23, 2001 9:00 AM
|I have been ridding a triple 105 for almost 2.5yrs, and in the last yr or so have found the set up to be less than optimal, even riding in relatively hilly area. The set up is 30/42/52. Compared to my 39/52, the 30 is near useless and the 42 does not promote spinning (especially early season) as a 39. Thinking of either dropping the 42 to 39 or going back to a a double. Anyone with this experience. Thinking this wave of triple guppos is another marketing ploy!|
|No question it can't hurt to customize your gearing.||MB1|
Nov 23, 2001 9:27 AM
|Stock gearing on bikes is just a starting point chosen by the company based on cost, availability and the national market. It makes a lot of sense to change your bikes gearing to suit your needs (which will change from time to time).
I change gears on our bikes regularly depending on the route we plan to take. Of course it takes a little investment in tools, cassettes and chainrings. Well worth it though.
|No question it can't hurt to customize your gearing.||Jon|
Nov 23, 2001 9:35 AM
|I went to a 52/39/30 with a 12/23 on the back. So now I only use the 30 on very steep hills if I need |
a bailout gear. It works just fine. With the 39, though, I'm going to the big ring a lot more. BTW,
the D/A triple features a 53/39/30 which makes more sense to me. If you're in a moderately hilly
area you might want to consider a 52/39 and add a 25 tooth on the cassette...whatever will let
you get up your steepest grades without breaking your knees!
|re: Triples: anyone sick of them?||bikerduder|
Nov 23, 2001 10:24 AM
|I recently upgraded to DA triple after riding the Ultegra triple for the last 3.5 years. I like the 39/53 middle/ upper a lot better than the 42/52 on the Ultegra, because I can use a 12/23 or even a 12/21 cogset while still having a good granny gear when needed. These cogs seem to give me a more natural spin, due to the # of teeth in the teens being closer together than with a 12/25 or 12/27. Like you, I rarely use the small ring. If you can, I'd change out the 42 for a 39.|
|tired of discussing them||diggler|
Nov 23, 2001 11:19 AM
|ride what works|
|Darn! I was SURE they made my riding more enjoyable...||cory|
Nov 23, 2001 2:50 PM
|...and my bike more versatile. I don't have to go back to that can't-push-it 53, do I?
No, seriously, triples (52-42-30 on one bike, 46-36-26 on the other) made a huge difference in my enjoyment and efficiency. I might not have appreciated them 20 years ago, but I don't care anymore what people think, and I need that granny gear to climb the 8,000-9,500-foot passes around here (I agree the 30's pretty much useless when you really need a low gear). As somebody else pointed out, custom gearing, fitting it to your ability and the terrain, just makes sense. But for me, where I ride, a triple is all good.
|Never even developed a liking for doubles.||Humma Hah|
Nov 23, 2001 4:49 PM
|One in the front, one in the back is enough for me, although I start seeing the sense in gears about 80 miles into a ride.|
|Marketing Ploy? Nah!||jtolleson|
Nov 25, 2001 8:58 AM
|Here in Colorado, even strong riders often have triples. A 30 that seems "near useless" in some places certainly is a help here. Out of gas near the summit of Mt. Evans? Hit the 18 percent grade on Devil's Gulch or the 16 percent final mile into Ward? Thank gawd for Granny, that's what I say!!!!
That being said, the tweaks to the ratios that the DA provides will probably be an improvement.
Remember the old RSX triples 46/36/26?