Double or Triple chain rings ?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
Im not really planning on a new bike just now but that doesnt stop me dreaming and drooling over Bike shop websites etc.

At my low level of fitness I often need the lowest of my 3 chain rings and the lowest gear to get up hills.

Some of the bikes I look at have only 2 front chainrings.Are these designed just for fit riders ?
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
and/or relativley flat terrain, it depends on the size of the chianrings and the cassette, you;re either going to end up with a narrower range or bugger steps between gears, people used to manage with seven gears and less
 

yello

Guest
Banjo said:
Some of the bikes I look at have only 2 front chainrings.Are these designed just for fit riders ?

No, not really. As Tynan has indicated, it's horses for courses.
 

BIGSESAL

New Member
I ride a double and don't really mind it. I don't think that they are only for the really fit as I am not super fit (perhaps over a very long ride were the legs get sore they may be of use). Also I don't see a problem with them on the hills (we have many here in Scotland) and I make it to the top without getting off and pushing.

I guess you just get used to the gear set and you get to know which gear you should be in. There have been occasions when I have thought - 'Man I wish I had an easier gear' - but the legs keep turning and you keep going. If you have another easier chainring to turn you will give in and change down making the ride easier.
 
OP
OP
Banjo

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
Horses for courses i guess.Im getting a bit fitter allready but still need to use my lowest gears to spin up some hills on my short but steep work commute while my mind lets me pretend Im lying on a beach somewhere sunny :-).

At a higher level in the sport what is more usual on a road bike 2 or 3?
 

Chris James

Über Member
Location
Huddersfield
MacBludgeon said:
yep, and how many of us actually use any more than that now?

Quite a lot I would have thought.

On my ride this morning I probably used about 20 combinations of gears (some overlapping), ranging from 30/25 to 52/12.

My speed varied from about 6mph to 40mph. Seven gears would have been a bit limiting and very tiring.
 
Reasons not to have a Double
1. You may be more likely to run out of gears you need
2. You may have too big a gap between the big and small and need to jump between them a lot.

Reasons not to have a triple
None
Ok one more cog may weigh about as much as a banana but that is about it.
 

Oddjob62

New Member
Over The Hill said:
Reasons not to have a triple
None
Ok one more cog may weigh about as much as a banana but that is about it.

That decides it. I'm upgrading to a double so i can finally carry that banana with me on rides.
 

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
Chris James said:
Quite a lot I would have thought.

On my ride this morning I probably used about 20 combinations of gears (some overlapping), ranging from 30/25 to 52/12.

My speed varied from about 6mph to 40mph. Seven gears would have been a bit limiting and very tiring.

Chris, I don't doubt you do but we have very different takes on acceptable chain lines for gear selections. IIRC you would try to run small to big, medium to medium and big to small. You don't consider the entirety of the rear cassette accessible from any of the chain rings, whether double or treble. I would assume that you feel you get a better power transmission and also minimise wear and tear by this method.

That's not my understanding and would seem more hassle than the returns, power or longevity, would warrant. But that's only me and my utility attitude, my speed has similar variances just less gears.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
My SWorks has a double with a 9 cassette - 12 combinations.
My Giro 500 has a triple with a 9 cassette - 15 combinations.

On a typical 200 Rando, they all get used.

Some say "never pedal downhill", but its best to apply a LITTLE bit of pressure while descending to keep the blood flowing round the legs. That's the only time the longest gear gets used.
 

Steve B

New Member
Location
Kent
I did quite alot of looking into gears before I bought my bike, paying particular attention to whether a double or triple would be better for me. At first glance a triple is better as it should give a lower ratio. In reality however it depends on the size of the rings you are using. All doubles are not the same, nor are all triples nor all cassettes. You can get complicated and work out crank lengths and srtoke lengths, or as a more general rule of thumb, simply divide the teeth on the front ring by the teeth on the cassette to get a ratio. Do this for a range of bikes and you can compare the standard set-up on each.

I did this for a range of bikes when looking for mine, and was surprised to see that some doubles (such as the Boardman bikes) were lower geared than some leisure/commuter bikes with triples. Again, as a general rule of thumb the more road-bike a bike is, the higher it will be geared - for speed. The more a bike tends towards off road or mountain bike the lower it will be geared. Again as stated above, there is also redundancy within gears such that the same ratio may be available on several front and rear combinations, and the distance between successive gear changes may be smaller in terms of ratio the more gears you have.

Pro or competitive cyclists will tend to change gear rings with the terrain they are riding, for us mortals you pays your money and takes your choice. A triple doesn't necessarily give you a wider range, but it is likely to give you smaller steps between changes and more redundancy. Having a triple is a useful fallback even if you only use it once in a blue moon, which seem to happen quite often round my way.....

Steve.
 
Top Bottom