Originally Posted by
seypat
The same way. But I have two on the left and less on the right. Over a long ride it adds up. The bikes with less than 7 cogs have barcons. If the whole ride is up and down, friction mode in enacted. Then it's just sliding a lever. And if the descents have any grade at all, there is no reason to pedal. I weigh 200lbs and gravity takes over. Just sit back and grin as I blow past the skinnys. They are always in front because that same gravity makes me climb like a snail.
Bear in mind that most of my are in the 50 mile+ range and some with loading touring. So I am looking for efficiency over outright speed in shifting.
I don't understand why people despise shifting the front rings. It must be the 9-11 groups with the narrow cogs and chains. Someone needs to explain it to me. Everything I have has triples including my wifes 8 speed 105 and they all shift flawlessly.
You do realise that with friction barcons you could just throw a 10 speed 12-32 in there and have more range than you have with your 14-28, and more close spacing than your 14-24?
I agree that if I were doing loaded touring like you, I'd definitely ride a triple. I prefer to travel light(ish) for my riding, though. Couple of sandwiches and clif bars and fill up my water bottles regularly along the route and I can do 100 miles no problem. Panniers to my mind are if you're planning on overnighting.
I don't hate shifting the front rings, I think it's something that a lot of people overblow; from the way some here go on about it, you wonder how they can drink out of their water bottle without stopping. But, a front shift is worth 2 or 3, or even 4, rear shifts, in terms of gear inches and cable pull, and it does take that fraction of a second longer for the rings to engage than the sprockets, so it's definitely worth treating as a bigger deal. So to say your 3x7 involves less shifts (2 front, 6 rear) than my 2x10 (1 front, 9 rear) to get from top gear to bottom isn't really comparing like with like.