Bicycle Mechanics - Triples vs Doubles-Pros and Cons of each?

I get a bit confused when reading about triples and doubles. Is the main difference- doubles more flat out speed oriented and the triples more suited for climbing? Thanks!

For any given choice of rear cassette, a double won't give the low gears that a triple can provide since it doesn't have the extra small chainring but a triple can have the same large chainring as any double. So, a triple can provide the same high gear as a double but a double can't provide the same low gear as a triple.

You can get lower gears with a double by using a very wide range cassette but that gives big gaps in the middle gears. Even at that, a triple will always provide a lower low gear.

The disadvantages to a triple are a very slight weight penalty and style points with the bike snobs. Some will claim triple don't shift as well as doubles. It is true that a triple with friction shifting (barends or downtube shifters) is trickier to shift accurately but it's a non-issue with indexing.

Not necessarily. Depends.

There are regular doubles, generally 53/39's or something similar which would be more typical of a road double (very common on a new road bike), then you have compact doubles usually 50/34 (but these ring sizes depend on the use of the bike, a lot of cross bikes may have 44-46 for the large). This gives you a slightly lower gear for climbing.

Then you have triples like the Dura Ace and Ultegras which are essentially road doubles with a 30t granny ring added. Then you have touring style triples which are generally 48/36/26 etc. (helps for carrying weight on a bike).

Preference depends on you (and the intended use of your bike), I just went from a triple 50/44/30 to a compact 50/34, and there is only about 2 gear combos I can't get on the compact, and a few ridiculously low gears that obviously aren't there, but I'm not carrying a lot of weight.

You also need to factor in crank length, etc, check out Sheldon Brown's gear information here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

It also depends on your cassette choices. If you have a closer spaced cassette (corncob) you will have more options for fine-tuing cadence on rides, but your larger cogs might not be big enough for climbing.

.....and a few ridiculously low gears that obviously aren't there, but I'm not carrying a lot of weight.
What are "ridiculously low gears" in Chicago are anything but ridiculous in Pittsburgh. A triple will always provide a lower gear than any double. Whether you need it or not depends on where and how you ride.

What are "ridiculously low gears" in Chicago are anything but ridiculous in Pittsburgh. A triple will always provide a lower gear than any double. Whether you need it or not depends on where and how you ride.

True story, I should of phrased that differently.

Also, as HillRider said, some people think that triples don't shift well - that's a myth. I've never had that experience, and the higher end triples have so many ramps and pins now, that they shift buttery smooth (given the proper setup). I road my triple (without ramps or pins) for 18 years in friction and never had an issue with shifting performance. For the brief time I had my DA triple, it shifted amazingly well.

For any given choice of rear cassette, a double won't give the low gears that a triple can provide since it doesn't have the extra small chainring but a triple can have the same large chainring as any double. So, a triple can provide the same high gear as a double but a double can't provide the same low gear as a triple.

You can get lower gears with a double by using a very wide range cassette but that gives big gaps in the middle gears. Even at that, a triple will always provide a lower low gear.

The disadvantages to a triple are a very slight weight penalty and style points with the bike snobs. Some will claim triple don't shift as well as doubles. It is true that a triple with friction shifting (barends or downtube shifters) is trickier to shift accurately but it's a non-issue with indexing.

Well said.

What are "ridiculously low gears" in Chicago are anything but ridiculous in Pittsburgh. A triple will always provide a lower gear than any double. Whether you need it or not depends on where and how you ride.

The difference between the lowest gear on a standard road triple (52/39/30) and a compact double (50/34) is about 4 gear inches. If you're reasonably fit, you probably won't notice the difference. I know that I didn't when I switched from a triple to a compact double last year...

The difference between the lowest gear on a standard road triple (52/39/30) and a compact double (50/34) is about 4 gear inches. If you're reasonably fit, you probably won't notice the difference. I know that I didn't when I switched from a triple to a compact double last year...
That's 4-gear inches out of say 36 (assume a 25T big cog) or 11% which is not negligible at all. Then too a 33T is the lowest chainring you can put a compact double and a 38T on a "standard road" double. The 30T granny ring on a road triple can be replaced with down to a 24T ring and that provides a greatly improved lowest gear.

I still maintain there is no real downside to a triple these days if your terrain and/or fitness need it. As I said, what's needed in the mid-West isn't the same as what's needed in Southwestern PA or West Virginia.

+1 for Hillrider's posts.

I'll add that with a decent triple setup, the weight penalty is about 100g - or the weight of a shot of tequila (without the glass, dearie).

Thanks folks. Well with the triple I find myself using the large ring and sometimes the center ring but have never used the smaller ring.

Well I loved my old triple, I'm not knocking them, I just figured it would be easier to drop the scratch on a compact double, then trying to track down proper spacers to use my old triple with a 9 speed setup. It would have been 40 dollars for spacers alone!

I tried the Dura Ace triple and I found the gearing didn't suit my bike.

Please put your location in your profile so we can see if you live in Florida where the biggest hill is the freeway overpass.

What cassette are you using? With a triple and some fitness you should be on something like an 11-23.

I get a bit confused when reading about triples and doubles. Is the main difference- doubles more flat out speed oriented and the triples more suited for climbing? Thanks!


I love triples. . . .and that I can use 26/44/48 rings with a 13-32 7sp rear. I can use the entire middle ring which by itself can take me from modest 8% climbs to fast rolling descents. It's great for rolling hills because I don't have to cross shift at all.

One difference between doubles and triples is versatility. . . . especially if you use a square tapered one. You can run any of these as doubles if you ever move or transfer it to another bike that doesn't need a triple. . . just get a shorter BB.


Speed is speed . . . it depends on the rider's input . . .the crank has nothing to do with it :thumb:

A triple will always provide a lower gear than any double.

Well, no. I realize you may be talking about road bikes, but Shimano's SLX double is 22 teeth on the small ring, as is their SLX triple. So in that one case, the triple does notprovide a lower gear than its corresponding double. What you actually lose are a few higher gears; you lose the 44tooth ring.

The thing that triples give you is a wider gear range than a double with a setup without too-large a difference in tooth count between rings.

My bikes are standard doubles. My lowest gear combination is usuallly a 39-26 which is good enough where I ride. We climb short and sometimes steep hills but no mountains. If I rode mountains I would probably have at least one triple. I have ridden some real mountains on rented touring bikes and was glad to have that 30t granny gear.
I do think there is a significant weight difference between a high end double and a triple, but when you need a triple you need a triple.
In the future I may go to a compact double, probably a 50-36. I think I would have much more use for a 36 than a 34. If I lived in the mountains I might have a 48-34 instead of a triple, just for the weight savings.
One of my bikes has a 9-speed Dura-Ace double. It has my favorite front shifting system because I can run any gear combination without trimming. And it never needs adjusting (other than an occasional shot of WD40 into the shifter).

Al

I have both a 50/34 compact, and a 53/39/30 triple. What I really prefer on the triple is the 39 ring which I rarely get out of. Of course the standard double is 53/39, but sometimes in the big hills I need that 30. I do not use the 30 ring often, but when I have to I am glad I have it

A triple allows you to use a close ratio cassette like 12-23, which will always give you the right gear for your normal riding.

I do think there is a significant weight difference between a high end double and a triple, but when you need a triple you need a triple.
The weight difference insignificant as a contribution to the overall weight of the bicycle.


A triple allows you to use a close ratio cassette like 12-23, which will always give you the right gear for your normal riding.

You can often get those "right" gears with a larger ratio cassette if you are willing to double shift.

============

Doubles do have the advantage of being somewhat easier to shift.

A triple allows you to use a close ratio cassette like 12-23, which will always give you the right gear for your normal riding.

A 12-23...... Man . . .that reminds me of when I used to ride those in a 6 or 7 speed FW back in the day with a 42/52. With 9,10 or 11 speeds it seems the only use is for a case of Carpal Tunnel. . . .or join "Shifters Anonymous" 12 step program. :lol:

Advantages of doubles that haven't been stated yet:

-- Lower "Q" factor, meaning your feet will be a tad closer to the middle of the frame when pedaling. Grant Peterson and the Rivendell people are all about Q factors. As a practical matter, the difference isn't a big deal for most people, and they notice the difference but adjust to it in a few miles or, at worst, a few rides. But there are some for whom the extra width of a triple equals significant ongoing muscle or knee discomfort. It seems to be kind of rare, though, so you aren't likely to care, but it is a possible concern.

-- Doubles, with the attendant short-cage rear derailleurs, look more like what the pros ride. That matters to some people.

And yes, doubles and the attendant stuff weigh less than triples and the needed longer cage rear derrailleurs, longer chains, and whatever else. But even assuming the poster who said the difference is 100 grams is wrong by a factor of two (I'm not saying he is) and the diff is realy 200 grams, that is less than half a pound. Unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool weight wienie, half a pound is nothing if you live in hilly terrain and need the lower gears.

For me, the Q factor and "it looks like what the pros ride" factor both matter and both weigh in favor of doubles. But my size, my (utter lack of) climbing ability and the hilliness of the area where I ride overrides any and all other factors and mean that Mr. Triple is and will remain my friend, on all of my bikes. If I lived in Pancake Flat Land, I might feel differently. But I don't, so I don't.

I tried the Dura Ace triple and I found the gearing didn't suit my bike.

This, and the fact that it is damn near impossible to customize rear cogsets, is the direct result of all the pins and ramps and sepcially shaped teeth and other things that go into modern click-shifting systems. Put another way, the vast reduction in chainwheel and cog size flexibility ois the price we pay for instantaneous buttery-smooth indexed shifting.

In the good old/bad old days, I could go into Talbot's in San Mateo and see two stacks of chainwheels - one Campy, the other Shimano - in literally any size you wanted. Good luck trying that today. Of course, everyhting was friction shifting then, so ramps and pins weren't part of the equation, and the smoothness of the shifts was down to the quality of the machining and your skill in shifting.

This is not meant to be an old-fogey rant (although I am an old fogey and am prone to ranting :D), but rather a factual comparison. The point is: there ain't no free lunch - you can have uber-flexibility in setting up your gears or uber-fast and uber-smooth click shifting, but good luck gettng both.

(Post from someone telling me why I am completely and utterly wrong coming in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .)

This, and the fact that it is damn near impossible to customize rear cogsets, is the direct result of all the pins and ramps and sepcially shaped teeth and other things that go into modern click-shifting systems.
Considering modern 10-speed cassettes are nearly straight blocks how many other cogs could you substitute?

A 12x23 10-speed is 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23 or straight for the first 8 cogs. A 12x27 is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,24,27 or straight for 6 cogs and then only 2 teeth difference for the next 2.

How much better could you do?

The weight difference insignificant as a contribution to the overall weight of the bicycle.


This is very subjective. It all depends on what you consider significant, or what I consider significant.

weightweenies puts it about 100g for the higher end groups. That's about one jigger, or 3 Tbsp, of tequila. Some might consider that significant, but not for its weight.

weightweenies puts it about 100g for the higher end groups. That's about one jigger, or 3 Tbsp, of tequila. Some might consider that significant, but not for its weight.

That's why I've stopped taking Tequila with me . . . the weight advantage. I just fill up on it before the ride.

weightweenies puts it about 100g for the higher end groups. That's about one jigger, or 3 Tbsp, of tequila. Some might consider that significant, but not for its weight.

I know you are a smarter guy than that. According to weight weenies the difference in weight between a Carbon Record 10 double with both derailleurs and an Ultegra triple with both derailleurs is 293 grams. And that doesn't include the difference in shifters or bottom brackets. The difference between a Carbon Record double and a Chorus triple cranset alone in about 200 grams.
Like I said maybe that isn't significant to you, but I think you could get a little closer with your numbers. You're at least 100% off.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Look at the difference between the Ultegra double and triple (I think they only list both in 9-speed). You're right, there will be a slight difference in derailleur weight - say 50g for argument. So total diff is more like 150g.

For a 135 lb. weightweenie, yes that may be an appreciable difference - at least psychologically. For one of us guys that needs help climbing it's nothing. And objectively it's still only a swallow from your water(?) bottle.


(Frankly, I was surprised that the diff in cranksets is so little, but it is what it is.)

This is very subjective. It all depends on what you consider significant, or what I consider significant.
The extra weight will have no impact on your speed (unless, maybe, you are riding at a pro level and them the impact will still be tiny).

In a rational discussion, it is quite objective and quite insignificant.

If you don't need a triple, by all means get a double! The fact that a double shifts quicker/more-simply has much more impact on your speed than the little bit of weight loss.


Like I said maybe that isn't significant to you
300 grams is 2 ounces. Or less than 1% of a 15 lb bicycle. Or 0.1% of a 135 lb rider on a 15 lb bicycle.

For me, the Q factor and "it looks like what the pros ride" factor both matter and both weigh in favor of doubles. But my size, my (utter lack of) climbing ability and the hilliness of the area where I ride overrides any and all other factors and mean that Mr. Triple is and will remain my friend, on all of my bikes. If I lived in Pancake Flat Land, I might feel differently. But I don't, so I don't.

Who let this honest guy in here?

The difference between the lowest gear on a standard road triple (52/39/30) and a compact double (50/34) is about 4 gear inches. If you're reasonably fit, you probably won't notice the difference. I know that I didn't when I switched from a triple to a compact double last year...

run an 11/28 Sram cassette on a Shimano 50/34 and you really won't miss that granny at all...

But you *could* be running an 11-23. :D

But you *could* be running an 11-23. :D

somebody could..but I couldn't...I already switched my 12-25 to a 12-27

You're comparing apples to oranges.


I meant to compare apples to oranges. Read my original post. I did not allude to comparing a high end double to a high end triple, or a double and triple in the same group. I was suggesting that weight is one reason why some people choose to buy a high end double over a triple. And shifting performance is another. I have no reason to criticize anyone for buying a triple, in fact I think it is often the best idea, it's mostly about where you ride, not about how much money you want to spend. I though I covered that well enough. You are trying to put words in my mouth.
My daughter lives in Seattle, I steered her toward a 105 triple. If I lived there I would have a triple.

The extra weight will have no impact on your speed (unless, maybe, you are riding at a pro level and them the impact will still be tiny).
True. But the lack of a triple can have a serious effect on your speed if you can't get your lowest gear up that really steep climb and have to push the bike. Joking aside, I've seen exactly that happen on some of my local rides. A few riders with 39x23 low gears were off and walking while I was still able to ride the hill in a 26x21.


300 grams is 2 ounces. Or less than 1% of a 15 lb bicycle. Or 0.1% of a 135 lb rider on a 15 lb bicycle.

In the interest of accuracy, 300 grams is 10.6 oz or 2/3 of a pound. That's 0.44% of your hypothetical 15 pound bike + 135 pound rider.

Still not a much but the weight weenies will pay BIG bucks to eliminate a lot less than that.

I was still able to ride the hill in a 26x21

And hence the name . . . :thumb:

I have a hybrid converted for the road with drops and road tires. It has a triple and lets me "spin" up long grades and slowly but easily make my way up steep climbs. Surpringly, it is also very fast!

I wish my "road bikes" had triples!

And hence the name . . . :thumb:
Absolutely! My nom-de-forum wasn't chosen lightly. :roflmao2:

BTW, Pittsburgh has what I believe is the steepest paved road in the world, Canton Ave. at 37%. Bicycling Magazine featured it in a recent article on the world's most difficult climbs.

I get a bit confused when reading about triples and doubles. Is the main difference- doubles more flat out speed oriented and the triples more suited for climbing? Thanks!

After 2 pages of reply posts, the answer to your question is yes.

SB

After 2 pages of reply posts, the answer to your question is yes.

SB
Only partially yes. Triples are indeed more suited for climbing. However, triples can have exactly the same high gear as any double so they can be ridden every bit as fast.

I love triples. . . .and that I can use 26/44/48 rings with a 13-32 7sp rear. I can use the entire middle ring which by itself can take me from modest 8% climbs to fast rolling descents. It's great for rolling hills because I don't have to cross shift at all.

................
:thumb:

+1

I have been told that with a tripple, your gears should be selected so that you are in the center chain ring and the center cog when you are riding on the flat at normal speed. You then have a range of gears to use without shifting the chain rings. I use my center chain ring about 95% of the time. Only when there is a big uphill or big downhill do I shift to another chain ring.

My first bike had cross over shifting where every other shift was a double cross shift. Never again.

The answer to the OPs question is that even a single chainring crank can be made to be used for either speed or climbing, depending on what size the wheel is, how many teeth are on the chainring, and what range of gears are on the cassette. I'd wish that we would discuss this in terms of gear inches because that would cut across the various wheel,cassette and chainring sizes. If one spends any time with the Sheldon Brown gear calculator, one would be able to appreciate the vast array of combinations available.
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/
To determine what range of gear inches one needs, one needs to answer these questions. What is the steepest grade one wants to pedal(without getting off and walking)? How fast do you want to go down hill? After plugging in your cadence(fitness level) you can the determine your answer. For example, I have determined that anything less than 30 gear inches, I'd rather get off and walk. On the other extreme, I'd like to go at least 100 gear inches per pedal stroke on the flats. I could achieve this with a triple, double, OR SINGLE! chainring with a 20" wheel! With a triple, I'd have a lot of overlap, with closely spaced gear changes. With a double I'd have less overlap, with more spacing. With a single, I'd use a Shimano Capreo Capreo 9-26( I'd have to customize it to go to 32, it can be done!), a 48t chainring, using 170mm cranks, and a 20" 451-37 wheel. It would have very widely spaced gears.

True. But the lack of a triple can have a serious effect on your speed if you can't get your lowest gear up that really steep climb and have to push the bike. Joking aside, I've seen exactly that happen on some of my local rides. A few riders with 39x23 low gears were off and walking while I was still able to ride the hill in a 26x21.
What I was getting at. For a lot of people, the triple adds a lot of versatility. For most people, getting up hills is more of a limitation than top speed.


In the interest of accuracy, 300 grams is 10.6 oz or 2/3 of a pound. That's 0.44% of your hypothetical 15 pound bike + 135 pound rider.
Yes, I screwed up the math.


Still not a much but the weight weenies will pay BIG bucks to eliminate a lot less than that.
People spend a great deal for many things that don't make a lot of sense.

===============


The answer to the OPs question is that even a single chainring crank can be made to be used for either speed or climbing, depending on what size the wheel is, how many teeth are on the chainring, and what range of gears are on the cassette. I'd wish that we would discuss this in terms of gear inches because that would cut across the various wheel,cassette and chainring sizes. If one spends any time with the Sheldon Brown gear calculator, one would be able to appreciate the vast array of combinations available.
Triples give you a greater range of gears than a double will or a single will (assuming the same cassette) and a double will give you a greater range than a single will. The triple could be focused more on hill climbing (eg, a MTB triple or a trekking triple) or more on speed (a road triple with a 52 or 53 tooth large ring).

many fish their whole lives not knowing it isn't fish they are after

Did we ever figure out what Crabster, the OP, is riding? I assume it's a road bike, but with doubles becoming more common on mountain bikes, we probably should ask...

I reckon that, as most folks said, it depends on what/where/how you ride, and preferences regarding appearance and other subjective stuff...

Now, I did see that Crabster is in Cape May, NJ. I'm from jersey, too, and everything south of Trenton (and much that is north of trenton) is coastal plains. Flat earth. I run a triple on my one moutnain bike, and on my "tour" bike. But, whenever I ride these on commutes or bar-runs or JRA, i never ever ever use the granny. My roadish bike has a 50/39 double with a 12-27 10 speed rear-end. To be honest, I don't use the 39t ring too much, and NEVER with the 27t cog. Am I bragging? Am I super-fit? No. I'm fat, but NJ is flat. If I lived in the mountains, I'd be using the 27t cog all day, and i may even wish for a true compact double or even a triple.

I suspect the OP answered his/her own question when s/he revealed that the granny is never used on his/her bike. But, to be fair to the double (which seems to have few fans on this thread), I'll mention the following advantages of the double:
-In my experience, it is easier to set up than a triple. Sort of negligible, though. Triples are easy; doubles are even easier.
-weigh a little less
-q-factor, if you care. With external BB's, you might.
-looks much hotter. many of us say we don't care, but if that were true, would we really be riding what we're riding?

advantages of a triple-
-Wider gearing.
-Sells better in the bike shop to neophytes who want a 30speed more'n a 20speed, etc

hth,
-rob

somebody could..but I couldn't...I already switched my 12-25 to a 12-27

His point was that with a triple crank, you could use a close ratio cassette like an 11-23 and have about the same low gear as your compact with a 12-27 while also having a higher top gear.

I thought long and hard about going to a compact double a few years back when I was building my "nice" road bike. The reason I ended up going with a triple in the end was that the 50/34 crank and the terrain I ride would have me constantly shifting back and forth between the 50 and 34 rings. With a 52/42/30 triple, I can stay in the 42 ring 80% of the time and only use the 52 and 30 for longer descents and climbing respectively.

If I ever were to go compact, I'd want something like a 46/30 or 44/28. Unfortunately, with current chainring standards, I'd have to use a MTB crankset to assemble something of the sort.

Interesting double crank numbers joejack. Several years ago I lived in an area that was about 50% flat. 40% rolling, and 10% hills but no mountains. I rode 5 cogs, 14-24 and 2 chain rings, 34-42 and it worked great for me and gave me every gear I needed for all of my local riding. I never ran out of tall gears and only used the low gear on rare occasions. I was in good shape and still young but found that when I got into really hilly country I ran out of low gears on steep, longish grades. During those times I longed for a triple. Triples were rare in the mid 70's, at least where I lived. I really love triples today here in real hilly middle TN and would not be riding if they were not available. MTB triples work just fine on my road bikes. My one road triple is just not quite low enough for comfort. The only time I use the big ring on my mtb crank is when I get over 20mph and I usually just coast rather than shift. Can't help that I am old and slow. My old bike weigh over 22 pounds too. Probably in the area of 25/26 pounds the way I have them set up.

His point was that with a triple crank, you could use a close ratio cassette like an 11-23 and have about the same low gear as your compact with a 12-27 while also having a higher top gear.

I thought long and hard about going to a compact double a few years back when I was building my "nice" road bike. The reason I ended up going with a triple in the end was that the 50/34 crank and the terrain I ride would have me constantly shifting back and forth between the 50 and 34 rings. With a 52/42/30 triple, I can stay in the 42 ring 80% of the time and only use the 52 and 30 for longer descents and climbing respectively.

If I ever were to go compact, I'd want something like a 46/30 or 44/28. Unfortunately, with current chainring standards, I'd have to use a MTB crankset to assemble something of the sort.



You actually have 3 non mountain crank choices for a compact crank . . with a low Q factors .

-TA Carmina can be had with a 94mm or 94/58 spider. http://www.specialites-ta.com/produits/crank_gb.htm

-TA Vega..... same spiders. Bilenky sells both of these cranks.

-White Industries Road VBC crank . . . proprietary rings, but huge versatility and low Q. http://www.whiteind.com/cranks/roadcranks.html

weightweenies puts it about 100g for the higher end groups. That's about one jigger, or 3 Tbsp, of tequila. Some might consider that significant, but not for its weight.

not that it matters....,

but with water at least, 100g (@1g/ml h20) = 100ml h20 = about 1/2 cup, so your tequila must be really dense.


but, back on topic...


i have a triple - whatever ratio comes standard with a specialized roubaix - and i definitely like having it.

i cycle in connecticut and new york, in moderately hilly terrain. i'm 50 yrs old and pretty new (6 months) to "serious" recreational cycling, which for me, means 150-175 miles per week, some of it in C and C+ group rides.

i frequently use the absolute lowest gear to climb hills.

with it, i can go up any hills i encounter while remaining seated - which i have been told on this forum is something i should generally aim for.

on group rides, i frequently find that everyone else is out of the saddle on our bigger climbs, but i am having no trouble hanging with them while seated, spinning away in my lowest gear.

i recently had a tuning problem, which made this lowest gear unavailable to me, and i could only use the second biggest cog on my cassette. i definitely missed it.

now that it's fixed, all is well again.

so, the answer is it depends..., if you are 50 yrs old, new to cycling, and like doing hills, get the triple.

i do find that shifting is not quite as smooth as with a double, but for me it's worth the trade off.

The answer to the OPs question is that even a single chainring crank can be made to be used for either speed or climbing, depending on what size the wheel is, how many teeth are on the chainring, and what range of gears are on the cassette...

...To determine what range of gear inches one needs, one needs to answer these questions. What is the steepest grade one wants to pedal(without getting off and walking)? How fast do you want to go down hill? After plugging in your cadence(fitness level) you can the determine your answer. For example, I have determined that anything less than 30 gear inches, I'd rather get off and walk.

On the other extreme, I'd like to go at least 100 gear inches per pedal stroke on the flats. I could achieve this with a triple, double, OR SINGLE! chainring with a 20" wheel! With a triple, I'd have a lot of overlap, with closely spaced gear changes. With a double I'd have less overlap, with more spacing. With a single, I'd use a Shimano Capreo Capreo 9-26( I'd have to customize it to go to 32, it can be done!), a 48t chainring, using 170mm cranks, and a 20" 451-37 wheel. It would have very widely spaced gears.

I came to the same conclusion. I could use at least two different sets of gears, depending on needs;

I may end up doing what every gear geek should do, change and update as needed.

Midwest fitness rides and centuries;

46t & 38t Road Double with an 11-21 10 speed cassette
This will give me tight gear spacing from 14 to 34 mph @ 100 RPM cadence. I should be able to mash out easy flat-land "hills" @ 7 mph.

Hilly Midwestern Century rides and flat multi-day events;

46t & 38t Road Double with a 11-28 10 speed cassette.
This will give me tight gear spacing from 11 to 34 mph @ 100 RPM cadence. I should be able to mash out most hills @ 5 mph.

Eastern or western multi-day tours;

48t, 36t & 26t touring crank-set, new FD with an 11-28 10 speed cassette and a long reach RD.
This will give me tight-enough-for-touring gear spacing from 7 to 35 mph @ 100 RPM cadence. I should be able to mash out any hill @ 3 mph.

Michael

P.S. I currently use a 44t & 12-27 10 speed cassette 1X10 set up. I can ride up any hill within 100 miles of my home and can maintain 30 mph in group rides.