Double or triple chainset?

[ColinJ]

Yes, that's true. I don't think that's what albion was implying though.

Ah, yes - "increasingly rare" perhaps?

 

[MacB]

When I achieve a level of fitness where the power is 'on tap' I really have to hold back in that my knee soon becomes a goner.

It's also ok having smooth gear changes, but hills themselves certainly are seldom smooth. I'm also sure that it is the lack of a 'granny gear' that both retires many new cyclists and makes roadies a growing minority in some areas of the country.

agreed, easy to hurt the knees but, in my defense, when I talk about maybe not needing to use my inner at some point in the future I am referring to a 24t, my 36t middle ring would probably be thought of as a 'granny' by some heroic individuals

 

[MacB]

However - if you can possibly get away with a lowest ratio of 28/21 (using a 48/38/28 teamed with a 12/21 nine speed cassette), your lowest gear will be 35 gear inches, and the leaps in the middle range will be of the order of seven percent - which makes for a far, far more comfortable ride. If you can do the clever thing and change up and down simultaneously it will be a little like driving one of those variable belt cars.

I ride with people who use all kinds of wide cassette ratios. It looks like terribly hard work.

far easier to achieve if you take a bigger leap from middle to small, swapping that 28t for a 24t would give you a low of about 30 inches using 24x21 which would be about the same as going 12-27 on a 30t inner ring.

 

[MacB]

I like the compact set-up, I use a 34/50 12/27 and find it's fine for most of my cycling, I know there's a fair bit of cross over but the overall range is pretty good. MacB's weird set-up's with 46t and 11 30 etc are fine if you're building a bike, as he does every couple of weeks , but most folks will just want to pick up a stock item. If I was riding long distances and carrying loads of stuff, or when I get old(er) and knackered(er) then I'd probably go for a triple but for my everyday mucking about at the moment a compact is fine.

Which is fair enough I just don't get why all the chainsets don't come with options, is the 130 road BCD to do with stiffness or something? For example, if all the chainsets came at 110/74 then you can easily run any of the options around double/compact/triple.

 

[zigzag]

how to shift front gears properly without losing momentum on a climb? i've noticed when riding with others of similar abilities, if i manage to drop them, it happens on a climb when they shift the front rings. too big of a gap between gears?

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Which is fair enough I just don't get why all the chainsets don't come with options, is the 130 road BCD to do with stiffness or something? For example, if all the chainsets came at 110/74 then you can easily run any of the options around double/compact/triple.

I don't know how they arrived at the 'standard' that they have, they could've done with a MacB tinkering in the workshop for a bit first, exploring all the options!

 

[User16625]

I disagree with everything you have just said, other than the negligibility of the weight, which is irrelevant. But each to their own, it boils down to personal choice at the end of the day. IMO triples are unnecessary on the average road bike for the average rider except for full blown touring and perhaps audax.

I disagree on triples being unnecessary. I live in a hilly area and generaly use my middle chain ring. Going uphill that lower ratio sprocket is essential (for me anyway). For high speed downhill blast then I will use the largest chainring. I dont use it that often but im glad its there when im going down a long or steep hill and want to go like hell. A triple gives you a much larger range of ratios which is ideal for the reasons I said. Also like has been said the weight is negligable so I see no reason NOT to go for a triple. Just my opinion.