Chainring check

Harrybelafonte

I'm currently on a triple - 48,38,28 with 12-26 on the back. After doing a few spins with different groups, I realised my chainrings are quite small (and too many, some say). Most at least had a 50 at the top. I also noticed they'd rarely use the top ring.

My other bike has a 52/42 and I know there's no way I could climb much with that. I've done plenty of climbing in Wicklow and never found myself spinning out on downhills. I did a flatish 211km on Monday and never found that I needed extra gearing. I don't race, but I'll be doing a few sportives.

Am I just a bit slow, or is my cadence a bit low or does it all really matter?

blorg

Your gearing is fine for sportives. If you want faster, higher cadence, but you can also get a cassette with a 11 which will be cheaper, probably.

seve65

I was on 48-36 and 12-25. Only had occasional need for a bit more oomph say going over 60.

Switched to 48-34 & 11-28 to have some more options for climbing. Had no problems with speed on the flat or downhill. But I was not sprinting generally.

Am now on 50-34 & 11-28, and to be honest I dont like it generally as I d spend most of my time wanting to stay in the 34 to keep the cadence high. The 50 is just too low a cadence generally unless Im cycling in the 33-45k range on the flat. I was doing 70k downhill tonight and there was still a load of leverage left in the 50-11 combo, so that was fun anyay .

shamrock55

sorry for jumping in hre lads but i know very little about cycling trying to learn as i go my bike is a triple 30/42/52 with 12-26 on the back would this be better suited for flat or hill cycling im not racing or anything yet but who knows or is it ok all rounder thanks guys;)

Keep_Her_Lit

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

I've done plenty of climbing in Wicklow and never found myself spinning out on downhills. I did a flatish 211km on Monday and never found that I needed extra gearing.

It doesn't sound as though you need to change anything. If others use slightly different gearing, that's no big deal if you can keep up.

does it all really matter?

If your bike meets your needs and takes you to places that you enjoy, isn't that what really matters?

Keep_Her_Lit

shamrock55 wrote: »

sorry for jumping in hre lads but i know very little about cycling trying to learn as i go my bike is a triple 30/42/52 with 12-26 on the back would this be better suited for flat or hill cycling im not racing or anything yet but who knows or is it ok all rounder thanks guys;)

The advantage of a triple chainset is that it gives a wider spread of gearing than a double (for a given rear cassette). The front-rear combination you describe is well chosen and will work equally well for climbing, riding on the flat or descending.

If you’re pretty strong and/or a gung-ho descender, you could possibly spin out on a 52-12. But it’s unlikely to be something that limits your progress on a daily basis.

At the other end of the ratio spectrum, if you’re still working on basic fitness or maybe carrying a little extra weight, you might struggle on a very steep hill with a 30-26 combination. But if you’re enthusiastic about your cycling, you will probably find after a while that you can tackle any hill on 30-26.

The main disadvantage of a triple is that it weighs slightly more than a double. Triples are also less aesthetically pleasing (to some) and may be frowned upon for implying weakness (i.e. you should be able to climb ANY hill on a double). Shifting between chainrings on a triple may not be quite as precise as a double. Also, triples may have a larger Q-factor, such that the pedals end up spaced further apart, which is also frowned upon. Furthermore, you will probably need a long cage rear derailleur to take up the greater chain slack that results from using a triple. Short cage rear mechs are slightly lighter and more importantly, look nicer.

All of these disadvantages are minor, however, and if you have a good triple set up, don’t change it without good reason.

doozerie

Keep_Her_Lit wrote:

The main disadvantage of a triple is that it weighs slightly more than a double.

No, weight is not the main disadvantage of a triple. They have a number of very practical disadvantages such as: depending on the rider and the gearing you may find that the spread of gears leaves you hovering on the boundary of gears between two front rings and therefore changing between the front rings a lot and changing between front rings is more prone to mechanical issues and therefore less reliable and slower than changing at the back; triples usually involve a longer cage rear mech and a longer chain, increasing the risk of the chain falling off under some circumstances (bumpy surface, changing at the front, changing gear under strain,...); triples tend to require more maintenance and can be fussier to tune. None of these are insurmountable issues, of course, but depending on circumstances they might outweigh the benefits of having a triple in the first place.

More generally, if a triple works for you, then great there is no *need* to change. A person may wish to change out of something other than necessity though, and curiosity about a double may be as good a reason to change as any. It's not a simple or cheap change to make though so if you are really curious your best bet would be to try to rent or borrow a bike with a double just to get some idea of what it is like to use.

Harrybelafonte

Thanks for all the input guys, very helpful.

NeedMoreGears

I have similar experience to Seve65 other than on the flat.

I had 50/34 & 12-26. I recently replaced the 12-26 with 11-30. I've found this great for climbing and I can get up the likes of Sally Gap faster than I did under the old set up. I don't find myself spinning out even on the downhills (probably due to cowardice mainly).

On the flat I am happy with my cadence on the 50 when using say gears 3,4,5,6 on the back for speeds of between 25kph and 35kph

Junior

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Thanks for all the input guys, very helpful.

Man up dude, 53/39 12-21 on the back

On a more serious note, I've always rode a double, 53/39 and at the back 12-27 and I've only struggled on climbs like Mahon Falls etc. And that's mainly down to fitness..

shamrock55

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

The advantage of a triple chainset is that it gives a wider spread of gearing than a double (for a given rear cassette). The front-rear combination you describe is well chosen and will work equally well for climbing, riding on the flat or descending.

If you’re pretty strong and/or a gung-ho descender, you could possibly spin out on a 52-12. But it’s unlikely to be something that limits your progress on a daily basis.

At the other end of the ratio spectrum, if you’re still working on basic fitness or maybe carrying a little extra weight, you might struggle on a very steep hill with a 30-26 combination. But if you’re enthusiastic about your cycling, you will probably find after a while that you can tackle any hill on 30-26.

The main disadvantage of a triple is that it weighs slightly more than a double. Triples are also less aesthetically pleasing (to some) and may be frowned upon for implying weakness (i.e. you should be able to climb ANY hill on a double). Shifting between chainrings on a triple may not be quite as precise as a double. Also, triples may have a larger Q-factor, such that the pedals end up spaced further apart, which is also frowned upon. Furthermore, you will probably need a long cage rear derailleur to take up the greater chain slack that results from using a triple. Short cage rear mechs are slightly lighter and more importantly, look nicer.

All of these disadvantages are minor, however, and if you have a good triple set up, don’t change it without good reason.

thanks for that info mate

Keep_Her_Lit

doozerie wrote: »

No, weight is not the main disadvantage of a triple.

Oooooohhhh yes it is!
(your turn: "Oooooohhhh no it isn't" ... etc. )

Look, I'm trying to ingratiate myself around here and you're not helping.

To take an example, just compare an Ultegra 6703 triple to a 6700 double. The triple weighs a staggering 105g more. Now tell me, what self-respecting Boardsie would openly admit to burdening their precious featherweight steed with such appalling mass?

In any case, Euro rule 31 clearly forbids the use of triples, thereby rendering irrelevant any discussions about weight or other pros and cons.

They have a number of very practical disadvantages such as: depending on the rider and the gearing you may find that the spread of gears leaves you hovering on the boundary of gears between two front rings and therefore changing between the front rings a lot and changing between front rings is more prone to mechanical issues and therefore less reliable and slower than changing at the back;

I'm unconvinced. Most road doubles are 53-39T. Most road triples now have a 39T middle ring. Of those that don’t, the majority have either a 40 or 38 middle ring, i.e. within 1 tooth of a road double. Furthermore, most (all?) triples have outer chainrings less than 53T, giving an overlap with the middle ring ratios slightly greater than that offered by most road doubles. So if anything, shifting between different front chainrings will be slightly less frequent on a triple, all other things being equal.

triples usually involve a longer cage rear mech and a longer chain, increasing the risk of the chain falling off under some circumstances (bumpy surface, changing at the front, changing gear under strain,...);

Is this risk actual or hypothetical? I ride a triple lots and the chain never falls off. Granted, it's on an MTB. Maybe the risk of a dropped chain is greater on a road triple, though it isn't clear to me why this should be so.

triples tend to require more maintenance and can be fussier to tune.

Again, maybe I’m missing something here. Apart from cleaning, maintenance on the chainset itself amounts to nothing more than changing the chainrings when they wear out - a quick, easy and infrequent job. As for front derailleur adjustments, there are five that I am aware of:
1. Height
2. Rotation
3. Limit screws
4. Coarse cable adjustment (via clamp)
5. Fine cable adjustment (via barrel adjuster)
Maybe I'm lucky but adjustments 1-4 above are once-only tasks for me. After the initial set up, they never need to be touched unless removing/replacing components or cable. Apart from that, the barrel adjuster gets tweaked a couple of times during the first couple of rides after the initial set up and that's it. Shifting is then clean and remains so without any further interference or messing about.

None of these are insurmountable issues, of course

I agree. Indeed, some may not be issues at all.

blorg

No, he is right, road triples are more fiddly to set up and the shifting is not quite as clean as on a double. Incidentally the shifting on my MTB triple (XT) is better than my road one (Ultegra, so same level.)

Having said that it is far from a major problem and a triple is a good choice for many people/uses. You only notice the difference if you use both.

The weight is not important, if you need it you will appreciate the extra gears going up a hill more than a 100g weight penalty.

Harrybelafonte

Junior wrote: »

Man up dude, 53/39 12-21 on the back

On a more serious note, I've always rode a double, 53/39 and at the back 12-27 and I've only struggled on climbs like Mahon Falls etc. And that's mainly down to fitness..

LOL, I was hoping you wouldn't find this. I've realised I'm still not fit or strong enough to stick with a double.

blorg wrote: »

No, he is right, road triples are more fiddly to set up and the shifting is not quite as clean as on a double. Incidentally the shifting on my MTB triple (XT) is better than my road one (Ultegra, so same level.)

Having said that it is far from a major problem and a triple is a good choice for many people/uses. You only notice the difference if you use both.

The weight is not important, if you need it you will appreciate the extra gears going up a hill more than a 100g weight penalty.

Personally, my bike is still the heaviest of all the bikes I've ridden with, so I'll stick with my triple until I can afford something lighter maybe. At least that's my excuse.

studiorat

I'm into mountain biking but I'm considering two rings on the front. I don't use the big ring until the cycle home, there really is too much crossing over of ratios...

It might be of encouragement to some though that Contador & Co. are riding a 34 x 32 for the Giro this year. http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/04/news/alberto-contador-on-giro-climbs-%E2%80%98hard-to-believe-until-you-see-it%E2%80%99_170127 Well bits of it anyway!

doozerie

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

I'm unconvinced.

That's fine, I wasn't trying to convince you, I was challenging your assertion that people who choose a double over a triple do so on the basis of little more than prejudice. There is a lot more to the decision than aesthetics or weight. I mentioned some of the actual considerations to bear in mind for the benefit of those who are in the position of deciding between a triple and a double. Doubles and triples both have their pros and cons, neither is well suited to every person or every situation.