View Single Post
Old 01-30-10 | 09:52 PM
  #271  
DArthurBrown's Avatar
DArthurBrown
Chasing the horizon.
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 500
Likes: 1
From: Michigan

Bikes: 2016 Felt F75, 2008 Mercier Corvus Steel, 2006 Trek 4300, 1985 Trek 620 (modernized)

Originally Posted by umd
Wow, back on topic, didn't think that would be possible. Of course no new ground is being covered here, just the same tired old arguments.



Shifting performance is a very big catch-all. It also includes issues of poor chainline, q-factor, increased chances of dropped chains, more difficult to set up properly to work well in all 3 rings, more front shifting required to go through the same range of gearing as a double with a wide casstte, etc, etc.



Weight always makes a difference. It's just a question of how much, at what cost, and is it important.



To you, sure. Obviously other people don't feel the same way.



Or you'll swear that your next cassette will have a larger cog



That is completely false. There may be hills for which you require a 30t small ring, but the hill does not require any particular gearing.
Your arguments sadly fall right where the bicyle parts manufacturers want them to--on the side of making you want to buy lighter, stuff and more of it. I stand by my statements. There are hills in Oregon that no Cat-1 rider could get up without a triple chainring. I've seen them try. They kill me on the flats, and I cruise by them in my third ring while they are pushing their bikes up the hill on foot.
DArthurBrown is offline  
Reply