Originally posted by Barnaby
Pokey- Your applesauce detector may be getting a bit over-used on this one!
1-I recognize that the book is dated, and I referred to that.
2-I don't think though that you have yet made a convincing argument for the triple.
3-Provided that the points he made, dispite your protests, have some merit, his argument in the present tense would be stronger not weaker: The rear wheels now have now 9 or more gears-with that gear range why would it still be necessary to add another range with a third ring? Perhaps now should be the time to shelve the third ring, which I agree still had some merit in certain situations when the cog count on the rear was 5 or 6.
4-My undestanding about chain ring wear is that the inside ring would usually have the truer line, and if so the larger would wear quicker, am I wrong?
5-The low gear quoted was 40.5 inches, he goes on to say that you may want to opt for a 44/40 with a 28 for a 38.6 inch gear, or a 46/42 with a 32 for a 35.4 inch gear. The options that he was dealing with were few due to the five or six freewheels, but he was doing this in such a way as to eliminate annoying ( and therefore unlikely to be used) double shifting.
6-We live in a more is better culture. If the manufacturers think that they will be at a disadvantage trying to sell a bike with a double for touring, they make do that even though the math would indicate that it is not necessary with the new cassette range available.
7-Raymond Bridge was writing in response to a situation that existed then: Bikes were coming out with alpine gears 52/40 with 14 to 28 cogs, and being sold to tourers who were going to be carrying a heavy load. The shifting sequence was awful and the high gear went along for the ride (100.3 gear inches.) I do though understand that bikes have changed and that the triple axles are shorter than then, splined may make a difference as well, but the central point remains-why the third ring and the still necessary longer spindle?
8-Proper gear range is important. When I knew even less than I do today I rode to Mexico in a 52/42-14 to 24-47.3 gear inches. Derailleur would not permit a larger cog, including up Look Out Mountain fully loaded. My friend on a 30 zipped past me like I was standing still.
9-The funny thing is I think that we may agree. You mention that you use the shortest spindle that you can get away with, I don't think that you would then rush off to add a triple even for full touing either.
I have a number of triples! They all use a 118 or shorter spindle, and one uses a 107! I also have new cranks and new frames.Flex is NOT an issue.I use the shortest spindile I can depending on whether the crank is a double or triple.The new splined spindles stuff does not give much choice as in the past(109.5 double or 118.5 triple road).The triple allows low gearing and close cog spacing without alot of shifting.Duplicate gears bothers alot of people.Not Me.If you can get the gearing you want with a double,I'm not going to argue with you,just saying alot of his reasons are lame,especailly in todays world.Even Grant Petersen likes a 1/2 step with granny. Ever notice how much of his stuff is hyped with a triple,built and sold that way?With a triple,the crank has to move out,chainline is optimized for the middle ring.Chainring wear may be theoretical,but I'm not going to worrry about it.I think people put up with alot in the past because of what was available.Spindles are now shorter and stiffer,cranks are stiffer,frames are stiffer lots of triples are available.Why fight it?No doubt the old stuff was great in it's time,and I have read Grant's and the Rivendell stuff.I'm on the new page.I have 6 speed freewheels and 10 speed with Carbon Fiber bits.I'm really not going back.....FWIW,I just pulled the BB out of a bike with a Campy mirage triple crank.Spindle length was 110mm!! Try a modern triple crankset with short or hollow splined spindle.You might be surprised and even like it.......I also pulled a crank from an old triple setup that used a 128mm spindle! I'm going to use that crank on a beater,but without the granny ring and with about a 115 spindle.