Road Cycling - New Triple Vs Double Question

I'm a big boy, 54, 250#+, I ride 20 to 50 miles at a time in the oklahoma hills. My average is 13-15mph. I do fine on everything but the BIG hills. I ride a Canondale with 650tires, Ultegra 9, 39-53 & 12-27.

Will swapping to a triple with lower gears really help or just prolong the agony?:confused:

Gears are there to match your power output to the drag (terrain and wind) at your chosen cadence.
If you run out of power, or have to reduce your cadence, you could do with a lower gear.
Sped is an output of the system, not an input, so you dont chose your gears to go at a certain speed.

The idea of using the same gear ratios as professional sportsmen always strikes me as odd. I am much weaker than Lance Armstrong, so to maintain a high pedalling cadence I use a much lower gear travel at a much slower speed.

Maybe a rear cassette of 14- 34 (aprox) would do the trick, you would need the long cage Ultegra rear derailleur though.
On my tour bike I have a 48 & 34 crank chainwheel setup, even tho the crank is a tripple I just use the two.
kev

Hi

Your lowest gear is 37 gear inches which may explain the problems on the big hills. Your high gear is 114 gear inches, which is quite high.

A new cassette starting at 14 and going to 34 would give you a range of 37 to 106 (low to high) which would help.

A triple would have the following advatages:
1. The small can be the granny range for the big hills. You can easily get to sub 27 gear inches.
2. You can probably keep your existing cassette.
3. Your High and medium can be much closer, giving you more flexibilty. The 53-39 is the old 'alpine' gearing for 10 speeds. With 9 speeds you can use something like a 52-42 and get more flexibilty.

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

Originally posted by 1oldRoadie
I'm a big boy, 54, 250#+, I ride 20 to 50 miles at a time in the oklahoma hills. My average is 13-15mph. I do fine on everything but the BIG hills. I ride a Canondale with 650tires, Ultegra 9, 39-53 & 12-27.

Will swapping to a triple with lower gears really help or just prolong the agony?:confused:

It depends......

Here in Central Florida, we have some hills that hit 7% (well up to 14% but that is really really short). Most of our riders are conditioned for hammering the hill until A) the crest it or B) they poop out and slow down to a crawl. On all but the tallest hills, you can just speed up and use your momentum to "vault" the hill.

However, I like going out west and doing some long climbs. In central Florida our longest climbs are about half of a mile. I can do anything for that distance even climb out of he saddle. But I prefer to sit and spin on long climbs 1 mile plus. I use a triple for long climbs. And the triple does not "prolong the agony". I often keep pace pretty well with fit riders using doubles. They are out of the saddle at a low cadence and I am in the saddle at a high cadence.

My suggestion though is that since you are a 13-15 mph cyclist, I think you would be better served with a triple chain ring if you have anything in the way of hills locally.

Have you ever spun the 53/12 at 90rpm? If not, then you really can do without the big gears.
TA have just releaded a new double chainset with a 110 BCD, so it can take smaller rings than standard 130mm. You can set it up as a 34/48 for cruising along. I used a Stronglight 80 with 36/48 and found it good for all but the steepest 20% hills.

I've long regretted not getting a triple. If only for the adapting factor now that I'm getting back into my commute.

Don't get me wrong, I asked for answers. But the original question was will the lower gearing get me up the big hills easier or will I go Anaerobic anyway trying to push this much weight up the big hills? Is there a point where lower gears don't help?

No, lower gears always help make hills easier. Non athletic tourists can plod up a mountain carrying a full camping load, but only with a gear in the low 20s" (gear inches).
For sport riders, a gear in the high 20" should make easy going of any hill. I only bust a gut on my 28" on insanely steep 25% hills.

I'm not small... 220lbs. at 5'10" (I lift weights), and ride 200 miles a week... I also live in north eastern pennsylvania and ride in north western NJ as well... so, I ride up my share of hills. My average speed is 15.2 mph over all my rides, including my weekly 75-100 mile ride... I guess I have a comfort zone, because I always ride at a pace that just plain feels right, no matter how far I'm going to ride.
Yes, I use a Triple Crank. It really helps save my knees on long rides(had both operated on in early 80's).
Also, I am 42 yrs. young, so aches and pains are frequent, especially getting out of bed in the morning.
A triple will help the climbs for sure, and may save wear and tear on the knees as well.

Originally posted by 1oldRoadie
Don't get me wrong, I asked for answers. But the original question was will the lower gearing get me up the big hills easier or will I go Anaerobic anyway trying to push this much weight up the big hills? Is there a point where lower gears don't help?

It really depends. I am pretty large also (195) but I climb better most much lighter riders.

Sure your weight is a disadvantage. But look at it this way. If you ride a double, there are a lot of hills that will force you off the bike and walking that you could make in reasonable comfort on a triple.

Of course, there is a point of diminishing returns. At something like 3 mph, it gets kinda hard to keep a bike upright. But for a reasonably fit rider, it takes a hideously steep hill to slow you down that far. Even with a triple, a not so fit rider might have to get off or stop and rest on a long steep climb, but not that often.

There is a big difference between having a 11-21 vs a 12-25 in the hills you can climb and that is just on a double chain ring. And the affect for triples is even bigger. Sure you still have to power yourself up the hill but the lower gears are a big, big help.

You can try it out yourself. Go to the LBS or find a friend with a triple and see if you can borrow one and try it out on one of your more fearsome local hills and see how you do.

I'm 57, 6', and about 200#. We have some good hills around here.

I have a triple on my commuter and have never used the smallest chainring even though I encounter a few hills and long uphill stretches.
When I first bought the bike in '99 I did use the granny a few times till my muscles got stronger.

I have a double on my Lightspeed and have yet to find a hill (not that I'm looking :D ) where I needed a lower gear combination than I currently have.

You can probably get a gear so low that you won't go anaerobic but you may be going so slow that you can't keep the bike upright. I'd say that if you ended up going less than 3-4 mph you'd probably have to stop anyway.

The gearing you need also depends on the length of the hills. I find I can stand on short hills without going to the inner chainring. However, for hills that are steep for several miles (as they can be in the SF Bay area where I ride) I have found that the triple is, if not a necessity, a welcome relief and allows me to alternate between sitting and standing positions during a long climb.

1oldRoadie said that he rides 650c wheels. Does that make a difference? When I went to 650c's from 700c's I could climb a lot better. Of course, I went to a lighter bike that fit so maybe that was the difference.
I just went to a 51/38 crankset with a 12/25 cassette and I love it.
I also lift weights to help my hill climbing. When I'm on rollers I spin downhill and am 2/3's of the way up the hill before I have to work.
It's funny, most of the riders I know around here swear that you can't ride these hills without a triple but I'll blow those people away on my double, even when I had the 53/39!
Wednesday I rode with a guy ( over 60 yrs. old) on a single speed. He blew us all away on the hills! It's all what you get used to.
Kathi

At the same cog ratios, 650c has a lower gearing than 700c. Thats why Campy used to make 54t rings for triathalon riders. The wheels are also lighter, so they will be better for hill climbing.
They may not be so stable on the way down.

I have the Mavic Open Pros on my Swift and I fly downhill. The bike just tracks so well. Not sure if its the wheels or the frame but I didn't feel as stable on the Cannondale. I had the Open Pros briefly on the Cannondale and still didn't feel stable so maybe its my frame.
Kathi

Roadie:

As some have mentioned already, this is an old debate. While I'm usually reluctant to add anything to a topic discussed in so much detail before, your particular situation lends itself to clearer answers.

To your original question: yes, a triple will help you climb more easily. More specifically, you won't go anaerobic as quickly with lower gears, as you'll have the option to downshift on some hills you now must push up on your lowest gears. There's no question about this. That's what lower gears are for.

In general, there is one important disadvantage to a triple: you carry more weight. I'm not sure how much more, since the front shifter weighs a bit more in addition to the chain ring, but we're talking somewhere in the area of less than half-a-pound.

There is another disadvantage, which is behind the less important complaints like "less good shifting" on triples, or "appearance", or, "allowing yourself to go to a lower gear instead of getting stronger". That is a triple will be seen by some people as an admission of weakness. That is the unspoken fear behind much of the reluctance to add a small ring to the bike. There are some riders who will choose to keep a double even when it means they cannot climb all of the hills in their local riding area.

You can decide what you think about this last item. My view: who cares? If you need the triple, you need it.

Back to you in particular. It's telling that you have a double now, and you're asking about getting lower gears. You obviously feel a need for them. Given what you've said about your weight and your average speeds, you'll almost certainly benefit from a triple. You'll be able to get more climbing done in a week, in fact, because your heart rate can stay lower. That will bring more exercise. Isn't that what the bike is for?

I appreciate all the great replys. I have decided to go to a triple and will give you the results when I have them.

As for the added weight - at 250# for myself, the added weight does not count.

As for the not getting stronger or appearance - I'm 54, have had a heart attack, I have asthma and I am not built for the sport. BUT brothers and sisters I RIDE and a bad day on a bike is still a great day!

Thank you for your honest comments.

I investigated replacng my double with a triple and found out that it was going to cost in the region of £130 after buying a new rear cage, new front mech, new chainset and new bottom bracket - and this was buying parts of the same range (Shimano Tiagra). If I wanted to combine it with some upgrades I was immediately looking at about £180 - hefty sums for a student.

How comaptible are parts made by different manufacturers - I know Shimano aren't the cheapest?

You may or may not need a new front derailluer. When I went from a double to a triple, all the bikes shops said I would have to change out the Dura-ace fr. der. I had made up my mind that I was going to the triple, so I tested it to see if it would work. Which it did. I am currently running the D-A front with a Campy Racing-T and have no problems shifting.

If you have knee problems of any kind, do not overgear your bike. A typical contemporary Tour de France low gear of just under 50 inches (39/21) is way too stiff for the average nonracing cyclist, and the typical 53/11 top gear is absurd.

If you avoid uselessly tall top gears, you should be able to get a good set of ratios with either a 2 x 9 (or 10) or a 3 x 7 (or 8 or 9) setup. To obtain a sub-40-inch low gear with short-cage SunTour derailleurs, I went to a 3 x 6 setup (48-45-34 / 13-23) on my Peugeot. The Bianchi came with a 2 x 6 (52-42 / 13-23), which I changed to a 2 x 7 (50-42 / 13-26). I do not need it often, but that additional 26-tooth grannie cog is a real knee-saver on steep climbs.

After listening to you alls advice, I put the Ultegra triple on my bike, adjusted the chain length, tweaked the shifting and rode.

After about 300 miles in the hills, I found that triples gets big boys up the hill without having to stop. And that in doing so I am getting stronger on the hills and needing the triple less.

My recommendation is to anyone that has to ask is to get the triple. There is always a bigger hill out there somewhere.

Start with just the cranks, the derailluers that are with the double might work...mine did.

Aw, go ahead get some more gears......It's good for the economy.
If you buy more bike stuff it will entice you keep riding more and more.

Everbody is offering sound advice. At 250+ I'm glad to hear you take on steep hills. You know you could look for flat places to ride.

Now go get them low gears, just remember you're still hauling 250+ up those hills.

PS: If I was your bikeshop I'd setup a triple chainset without the outer-chainwheel. I'd use a 46-32 middle inner combo.

It keeps tha chain short, and does't need a big deraileaur cage.

A 32x27 low on 650cc wheels, you'll be oK.....

Another Richard Cranium idea........!

Why would I want to remove my big ring?
On this mornings group ride I was in the 52-14 and riding about 26-27 mph. Are you assuming that I am fat? Not all large people are overweight and carrying too much fat. Some of us just have a lot of mass. At 18% body fat I enjoy an extremely active life and I LOOK FOR THE HILLS!!

1OldRoadie:

The only thing you need to do is keep riding. What you're doing sounds great.

I'm pretty close to you in bodyweight and I run pretty big gears but I live in Fla and the only hill here is the bridge over the Intercoastal to the beach. Like you I wouldn't be described as particularly fat and I use the weight to mash that big gear and chug along.

My fr. in law lived in Idabel, OK until just a couple of weeks ago, anywhere near you.

:beer:

Originally posted by Walter
1OldRoadie:

My fr. in law lived in Idabel, OK until just a couple of weeks ago, anywhere near you.

:beer:

Idabel is about 125mi south of here. The first ride of the season is there. Good people, rolling hill, great food.

Roadie, sounds like you know you made a good decision. Your knees will thank you. I ride a 10-speed in Florida and I can tell you when I ride some of those brides, I wish I had a triple. Riding up a vehicle bridge with a lot of traffic isn't a place you want to bail and with bad knees (surgery material), climbing out of the saddle's not an option.

Why would I want to remove my big ring?

A:Because you would get an even "cleaner" bulltet proof shifting response with an even shorter chain...

Are you assuming that I am fat?

A:Not really, just not in need of gearing higher than a 46x12, and if you did, then get an 11x28 XT cassette. If you're really spinning out a 46x12, you didn't need the low stuff to begin with.

Not all large people are overweight and carrying too much fat. Some of us just have a lot of mass. At 18% body fat I enjoy an extremely active life and I LOOK FOR THE HILLS!!

A:That's your problem.