This begins to get at the philosophical underpinnings of triple vs double. I extend the minimalist approach I take to gear to my gears. So why tour with 3 chainrings when 2 will do as well. There is no right answer here, just preferences and options. Ride what you like, but lean from your riding and be open to change.
I have no problem with change. I have no problem with new technology. I've just never found a place in the tours that I have done where a triple isn't an asset. I've found lots and lots of places where a double would be a liability. My tour through Appalachia this spring would have been a total suffer fest with just a double. I could have done it...I'm not a weak rider...but it would have been less pleasant than it really was.
Originally Posted by
cplager
In general, there is a lot to be said for saving your energy for climbing and not wasting it on the descent. For rolling hills, this makes a lot of sense.
For mountains, however, the decents can be miles and miles long. I've heard of complaints from several people of having their legs going cold if they couldn't pedal.
Cheers,
Charles
I've haven't found that pedaling on downhills waste any energy. Even pedaling downhill in an attempt to get the maximum speed possible is far less strenuous than any uphill. Well, I'll take part of that back. I toured in Scotland once and had to pedal downhill in low range off of Tiger Run because there was a gale blowing up the glen. Worst downhill ever! That was a strenuous as coming up the other side.