|Double or Triple?||ryangw|
Jun 1, 2003 5:41 PM
|I'm just getting into road bikes, and I need to decide between a double and triple crankset. I don't foresee myself racing, but I am pretty interested in some long rides, probably over some hilly terrain. What are the disadvantages of the triple, besides the weight, which doesn't matter a whole lot to me? Any help will be much appreciated.
|re: Double or Triple?||newridr|
Jun 1, 2003 6:23 PM
|I'm in the same boat. Buying a road bike after riding mtb for years. I'm going with a triple. Rather ride up a hill slowly than walk.|
|I have both||MikeBiker|
Jun 1, 2003 7:01 PM
|I ride the triple on rides that have any steep or long climbs. I only take the double when I know that there are no steep hills. The double front derailer does shift a little better than the triple, but not enough to matter to me. If I only had one bike, it would have a triple.
|For your situation, definitely a triple...||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 3:41 AM
|A must have for long, hilly rides. I have a double, and often wish for the triple on hills...|
|re: Double or Triple?||JS Haiku Shop|
Jun 2, 2003 6:09 AM
|triple. if you are asking, you've already decided.
disadvantages are a 1-tooth smaller big ring if you're not getting dura-ace (DA big ring double & triple=53, all other shimano triple big rings=52, all other shimano double big rings=53). you can offset that with a cassette having an 11-tooth small cog, if you need it.
other disadvantage is the snobbery factor. you might get snooted at by roadies who view a triple with disdain. this is all good and fine in kidding, tho many are small-minded bigots and actually do feel superior to triple riders.
ah, cycling community at its finest.
get the triple and spin past dobule-equipped 15-pound $7000 bikes on long, steep climbs. get a double on your second bike. don't let your equipment limit your enjoyment.
|Triple unless you're very strong and in very good shape...||Eug|
Jun 2, 2003 6:48 AM
|I know a lot of people on this board are in amazing shape, and indeed, a friend I ride with does fine on a double.
However, he's in much better shape than I am. To be honest if I had a double with a 39, I'd probably kill my knees mashing up the most steep hills around here. Either that or I'd have to get off and push.
On a recent ride however, I did notice that a few riders on chichi bikes clearly had problems with their doubles on a moderate hill, while I was spinning comfortably past them on my granny. They were posers of course, but nonetheless they would have done well to get a triple.
YMMV, but when in doubt, consider the triple.
|As things stand, if you don't know you need it, you probably do.||niteschaos|
Jun 2, 2003 12:32 PM
|I started out on a triple and I'm glad. There are some climbs around Greenville, SC that I wouldn't have been able to get up without a triple when I started out. The main reason why I ride a doulbe now is that my triple was bent in a car accident and insurance replaced it with a 105 double. I'm a much much much stronger rider than when I started so the double feels fine to me now. If I started with a double I would have been more frustrated until my cycling fitness rose the level I'd nead to get up places like Ceasar's Head and Paris Mt. on a double.|
|re: double or triple||Nug|
Jun 2, 2003 5:04 PM
|My theory is this- beginning rider, one bike- triple. Once you fall in love with this stuff and start lusting after your next road bike, you can spend as much time as you can avoiding your granny- you'll be suprised at what you can get away with- and that means pushing a 42T up front vs. a 39T. If that works, get a double on your next ride. Still want a bail-out on a double? Ultegra 12-27 cassette on the back. Have fun (you WILL eventually have both!)! You might want to consider getting that triple on a frame OK for racks and fenders, so down the road you'll have a nice tourer, to complement your sleek "speed bike" with the double. It's fun to have the right tool for the job.|| |