Am I missing somthing here regarding gearing?

[mcshroom]

No, double chain rings are a badge of seriousness more akin to leg shaving in that a serious roadie will attack that hill in the small ring rather than sit and twiddle up it, the same as he shaves his legs on the off chance that he may need a massage.

There was once a very controversial member on the old CC forum (can't remember his name but he generated a lot of discussion and even acrimony) who wrote that "mountain bike gears have no place on a road bike".

I'm guessing bonj

 

[albion]

I don't see the problem.

You tootle along using the middle section of the cassette and only on hitting an incline/decline do you switch from or to the 34 to then tootle along using the rear cassette change.

 

[raleighnut]

3 speed Sturmey Archer with a tensioner wheel and a double front ring with lever op front shifter used to be very popular.

 

[Pale Rider]

3 speed Sturmey Archer with a tensioner wheel and a double front ring with lever op front shifter used to be very popular.

Range can be limited with hub gears, so I've often wondered why makers don't do this.

 

[Globalti]

I'm guessing bonj

Yes that was him!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My current take; having been a convinced triple-a-holic until I built a compact equipped bike, because I could;

Compact large ring; riding on the flat, going downhill.
Compact small ring, going uphill
Three shift at back = one shift at front = broad equivalence of gearing is a useful rule of thumb.
Shifting front and rear simultaneously a useful, and satisfying skill.
Triple only needed for lugging luggage or at the end of very very long rides at the limits of my fitness/endurance that involve one more range of hills before home.

but then the my current liking for compact came after an extended period of riding only fixed, and occasionally ss, which made me realise much of my need for a wide range of gears was mental not physical.

 

[Ian H]

No, double chain rings are a badge of seriousness more akin to leg shaving in that a serious roadie will attack that hill in the small ring rather than sit and twiddle up it, the same as he shaves his legs on the off chance that he may need a massage.

Except that, by that logic, a compact is for those who want to pretend, but haven't the legs for 39/53.

 

[hopless500]

FFS i want my triple back tbh.

Got a triple and a double. I loathe the double. I need to do something to it to get lower gears - can't get up hills for love nor money on the damned thing.

 

[swansonj]

Point of order: we are talking about doubles and triples partly in terms of how low a gear they deliver. But that's a function of the size of the rings not the number. I used to have a bike with, from memory, a 28/44 double at the front and a sprocket at the rear that went up to 32.

 

[Globalti]

Except that, by that logic, a compact is for those who want to pretend, but haven't the legs for 39/53.

That's a patronising comment isn't it! Compact gears have done as much for road riding as triples and wide-range cassettes did for mountain biking. I'm sure most amateur and new road cyclists could push 53/39 but I'm also sure most of them want their cycling to be enjoyable, not a painful grind in too big a gear.

Traditionalists need to get used to the idea that compact chainrings, 11-28 cassettes, smooth riding carbon frames, comfortable bars and saddles and anything else that makes road cycling easier, are here to stay.

 

[hopless500]

Point of order: we are talking about doubles and triples partly in terms of how low a gear they deliver. But that's a function of the size of the rings not the number. I used to have a bike with, from memory, a 28/44 double at the front and a sprocket at the rear that went up to 32.

True. Been intending to look at different sizing options, but not got round to it yet. Mr Hop suggested that I need more of those toothy things on there

 

[Fab Foodie]

I will stick to triples, and spending most of my time on the 39-tooth middle ring.

Me too, don't like all the double shifting with compacts.
Even gone back to DT shifters

 

[ColinJ]

The new gearing for my Cannondale should be interesting ... I am keeping my 13-29 cassette but changing the 53/39 double chainset to a 48/38/28 triple.

My thinking:

• I was not getting much use out of my 53. If I did use it, it was usually only in the middle of the cassette. By reducing the 53 to a 48, I will be tempted to go up onto the big ring more often and use the smaller sprockets. The only price to pay is the loss of my top gear, but a 48/13 top gear will do me. I would only use that downhill and am happy to freewheel above the 35-38 mph that I would be comfortable pedalling at. Big ring generally for speeds over 20 mph.
• The 38 middle ring will be very good for most of my riding using the 14-26 sprockets. If necessary for climbs not worthy of the 28 ring, I can put up with a bigger chain angle and use the 29 sprocket. If necessary for bursts of speed not worthy of the 48 ring, I can put up with a bigger chain angle and use the 13 sprocket. Middle ring generally for speeds of 6-20 mph.
• I will have a luxury range of low gears using the 28 ring for the really nasty climbs round here. 10-20% climbs are common, and there are several at 25% on which a 28/29 bottom gear will come in very handy, especially after long rides and battling a stiff headwind. Little ring reserved for grovelling at less than 6 mph!

Even gone back to DT shifters

Now that's a step too far!

 

[raleighnut]

I've got a similar set up on my Ridgeback touring hybrid 52-40-28 and a 13-28 rear, bit much laden going up steep stuff (time for a walk) but pedalling below 1-1 seems a bit weird unless doing serious off-roading. Unladen I can climb most roads.

 

[Fab Foodie]

The new gearing for my Cannondale should be interesting ... I am keeping my 13-29 cassette but changing the 53/39 double chainset to a 48/38/28 triple.

My thinking:

• I was not getting much use out of my 53. If I did use it, it was usually only in the middle of the cassette. By reducing the 53 to a 48, I will be tempted to go up onto the big ring more often and use the smaller sprockets. The only price to pay is the loss of my top gear, but a 48/13 top gear will do me. I would only use that downhill and am happy to freewheel above the 35-38 mph that I would be comfortable pedalling at. Big ring generally for speeds over 20 mph.
• The 38 middle ring will be very good for most of my riding using the 14-26 sprockets. If necessary for climbs not worthy of the 28 ring, I can put up with a bigger chain angle and use the 29 sprocket. If necessary for bursts of speed not worthy of the 48 ring, I can put up with a bigger chain angle and use the 13 sprocket. Middle ring generally for speeds of 6-20 mph.
• I will have a luxury range of low gears using the 28 ring for the really nasty climbs round here. 10-20% climbs are common, and there are several at 25% on which a 28/29 bottom gear will come in very handy, especially after long rides and battling a stiff headwind. Little ring reserved for grovelling at less than 6 mph!

Now that's a step too far!

That's where I'm looking to go with my gearing too for much the same reasons. I'd miss 52x11 for the 50mph descents though!