Originally Posted by
pacificcyclist
Other than that, there are a lot of triple Luddites who are opposed to this.
Again, loaded words. Just because you don't agree with me...nor I with you...doesn't give you the right to be insulting. I've not attacked you personally. I have addressed your ideas but not said anything about you at all.
Originally Posted by
pacificcyclist
I think we are not debating gears, because I feel you think my gears are too high still for touring. This is simply a fitness issue. Every rider has different fitness level going into touring and typically the bike shop who sells a touring bike and knows about gearing ratios will look at the current bike the OP is riding and determine where the wear level on the chain rings and cassette. If the big ring isn't even close to even being worn out and that the middle ring and small ring teeth are shaped close to a shark fin, what does this suggest? The rider is needing more higher gears?!? But if the reverse is true and the 46T or 53T chain ring are worn more as well as the 42T or 36T and the 30T granny or 26T are barely touched. What does this suggest?!? The rider needs more lower gears?!? In touring, you would need more lower gears but that depends on the terrain and rider fitness. Most smart shops will want to see your current ride and determine the appropriate gears. The OP went to the shop and the owners suggested a 2x10 system rather than a triple. You don't suggest this unless you're sure you can make your customer happy, because suggesting other than the norm triple and if the customer isn't happy with the advice, the owner can become liable. If and when the 2x10 isn't suitable for the customer, the owner may have to install a triple possibly on his own expense. Why would a store owner be so stupid?
We are debating gears. You aren't understanding my point. I don't think your gears are too high for touring. Your high and low are okay...I'd go lower but to each his own. Why I am saying is that the double systems have bad arrangements. They are linear without having the ability to use that linearity. They are two separate ratio sets that have little to no overlap. What overlap they may have isn't easily accessible. Your comments above that a tourist will shift until they can't shift anymore then change chainrings is about the only way to use a double system...as currently configured. It is, essentially, a 10 speed with granny.
As for setup, I don't agree. You have it backwards. A shop owner should set up the bike as a triple. If, at some future date, the customer wants a 2x10 (or x9 or x8 or etc.), it's easy enough to remove a chainring. Going from a double to a triple is an expensive proposition..you'll need a new shifter, a new crank and a new front derailer at a minimum... and no shop owner should be liable for paying for the conversion.
Originally Posted by
pacificcyclist
It's obviously now getting to a point that we are discussing what gearing we like and is no longer related to the gear ranges a 2x10 system can offer rather than a triple. As I said before, a less fit or a super strong cyclist would benefit from a triple without loosing the high gears either for ego's sakes or wanting to bomb down a hill maybe once in a blue moon with a 110 or 122" gear, because a 32/24T 2x10 double would be too limiting. A 36/24, 38/24 and 42/24T provide a good compromise with ranges similar to a triple while loosing 1 or 2 higher gears.
Still talking about gearing systems. A 2x10 offers the same high and the same low...or at least a similar low and useable(ish) high...but the steps in between just aren't there. You may not like to bomb downhills and I respect that. Your choice. Please respect my choice as well.