The move by some to go to an 11 by 2
 

On several bike forums, there seems to be more and more talk about going to an 11 by 2 gear train. I guess I dont understand why.

IMO say a 9 by 3 makes more sense. Having the granny gear in front comes in real handy when an unexpected steep hill presents itself.

Marketing.. there is a fortnight of showing off the latest stuff in France, right Now, on TV.

FWIW, my 3 by 2 is fine .. 1 chainring, 1 hub cog 2 planetary gears .

As is the 1 by 14 speed still 1 hub cog inside the hub 3 planetary stages and a Reduction gear stage .


1958ish I Had fun on my 3x3x3 speed S-A 3 speed, triple cog , triple crank .. Wide chains, that last longer..

https://s31.postimg.org/5iu37caff/gears.png

Maybe it has something to do with there being no benefit to the triple. Maybe having a 50 and a 34 is just way easier for people to be out on, and enjoy the ride, and worry a lot less about cross-chaining. If you're in the 50 and you're approaching a hill, and need ~30% easier gear, you shift down the front...at the top, you shift up the front. It's just simple, it works, and people can focus less on worrying about their gearing and more time having fun enjoying the ride.

That said, I do enjoy the triple on my mountain bike...but on the road, the compact double is care-free...it's all about just riding and having a good time.

The way I see it, since there is no inherent advantage to the road triple as deapee pointed out, if you NEED a new crankset and can afford to upgrade the other necessary components, go with the double. If you're looking for new bike, doubles are pretty much all you'll see. If you have a road triple and all is well, don't let the cycling elite shame you into changing. I ride a 16-year old Trek 2300 with a triple and the young techno-geek riders laugh and give me flak. Sometimes it's in fun, sometimes it's quite elitist, condescending, and nasty. I just shrug it off and tell them to worry about their own equipment.

Look at your chart again. The triple is the setup that allows for "care-free" riding and "a lot less cross-chaining". The compact double actually encourages cross chaining. It also needs double or triple shifts on the rear in order to avoid huge changes in cadence.

For example, consider that you are riding in 50/18 gear on the triple and the 50/17 gear on the double and let's say that you need to downshift off the large ring in anticipation of a steep hill. With the triple, you are now in a 39/18 gear and, from your chart, the gain ratio changes from 5.6 to 4.8 for the triple. This is just about the same change as going from the 18 tooth cog to the 21 too cog in the back. Cadence wouldn't change much and you're set up to keep downshifting on the rear as needed. If you had to drop to the inner ring on the triple, the cadence changes wouldn't be that much either.

Now consider a similar shift on the double. Shifting to the inner ring changes the gain ratio...5.8... to a much lower 3.9 ratio. To find a similar shift as the triple, you'd have to upshift on the rear 2 gears to the 14 tooth cog or increase your crank rpms to over 120 rpms to catch up. It feels a lot like you've dropped the chain. I suspect that most people just coast until they have scrubbed enough speed so that they can reach a comfortably rpm. But the problem with that is that you've lost momentum for the climb ahead.

The other advantage that the triple offers over the double is a much wider range. If you put on the same cassette as the double...an 11-32...the triple offers a lower low. Lots of people find that to be a very handy feature. Not because we are weak but because we are smart. We let the gear reduction work to our advantage.

I saw lots of examples of this on a mountainous bike path this weekend. One, in particular, was very illustrative. For some reason, a rider had to stop on a very steep section of path behind some other riders. His bike was geared so high that he couldn't get going from a stop on a hill. He was trying to get enough momentum by pushing with his foot but he was simply geared too high. On a triple, I could have easily started on the same hill...I've actually had to do it a few times since it is a congested path with a wide variety of skill levels riding it.

You're thinking way too hard about this...that is how I know a triple is for you.

I enjoy the double, as do many others...we prefer to focus on the ride not what gear we're in.

PS Mountain bikes are different animals, and I may (or may not) have alluded to that in my post.

PPS the 50 and the 28 don't cross chain anything near even a 50/39/30 on the middle ring does on the second to biggest gear.

Cyccommute provided some rational reasons for a triple. Rather than "thinking too hard" he merely laid out the benefits he (and others) have found. I have a road/touring bike and am very happy with the triple, as when I'm in shape I mostly treat it as a 2 ring, but when I'm not, or when I hit some of the challenging hills around here, the small ring is very welcome. When I'm not using it I have smaller cassette jumps than if I had only 2 rings and a wider range cassette (and as mentioned less jarring switch between rings. The terrain in the Syracuse area is rolling at best, so being in the large ring most the time would limit my riding routes. I'm sure flatlanders don't have the same problem. I for one don't want the wear and crankiness of an 11 cog system, either.

Also, as the middle chainring is aligned with the middle of the cassette and the large on a double is outside of that it is not geometrically possible for your 50-28 (2nd largest cog) to be less cross-chained than a middle ring with the 2nd largest cog. I do not worry about cross chaining at all, as I'm rarely in the small chainring with more than the largest 5 cogs of 8. Though I don't do so often or for long I can ride my 48 with the large rear cog without a problem.

I could not stand a compact crankset, not only for the large jump but also because for some crazy reason they don't generally come with less than a 50 tooth large chainwheel. Pedaling downhill or with a very high tailwind is the only use for a 50-11 or a 50-12 for 99% of the riders, and doing so when one will have to go uphill again is a huge waste of energy. As with a compact crankset, people who live in more flat country may find it not a problem, but I'm not going to waste my gearing with cogs that I never need to use. I find that a 48 tooth is more than enough now that the small cog has gone down so small.

If you want to speak for others who prefer a compact that's fine - let them object if they feel you don't speak for them. But you have no call to be snarky about someone else's preference for an alternate choice.

11-speed systems came on the market in 2009.

And people are just talking about it now?

You're missing the point of this entire thread -- both of you are.

The topic at hand is why there is a perceived increase in discussion and use of an 11x2...NOT whether you personally like a triple better than a double. If you want to discuss the merits of triple vs double, I suggest starting a thread or joining in one discussing that. For the time being, I'll leave it what I already stated -- simplicity (or even perceived simplicity, to appease you).

So in summary - compact cranks are good for some people, and triples are good for other people.

It baffles me why this subject always starts an argument.



OK, that'd be roughly half of my regular ride.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6...a%2BDiablo.jpg

Well, as this is the first time a thread has ever strayed I must apologize! I don't see any harm in discussing pros and cons, and I acknowledged the compact will work for some riders. I decided to respond due to the inaccurate portrayal of the previous poster.

Of course the move to compact has been motivated by simplicity - it obviously gives a wider range with fewer parts and fewer decisions, simplifying things for both manufacturers and riders who choose that route.

Yep, for you there's no uphill afterword, so pedal away!

A lot of touring bikes run triples similar to a mountain bike's. My distance bike uses a 52-42-30 crank set and a 14-25 9S cassette. A 2X10 or 11 compact double can provide the range of a triple, but not the close ratio shifts to trim for head and tail winds.

Whether 8, 9, 10, or 11 speed, the cassette width is very similar and the middle chain ring can use any of the rear cogs without a classic cross chaining event.

Brad

PS A 2X11 is probably best for reducing inventory of triple equipped group sets for the manufacturers...

And I ride a 53 x 39 "standard" 10 speed.

So no "correct" setup ...... depends on variable variables ....

The #1 reason to buy a double is because pro shop mechanics whine and complain and make up excuses for poor set-up, because adjusting a double is easier and they're used to doing it the easy way, and they'll tell you about how bad it is, and blame any shortcomings as an inherent shortcoming of the design.

Sort of like internal cables.

Non sequitur much? I think about gearing before I go riding so that I don't have to think about complicated shift patterns while riding. As I pointed out above, I can shift up or down on the rear cassette or the front ring to arrive at a gear that is close to the gear I need. You simply can't claim the same for a compact system.

Again, go back up and read what I wrote. Compact doubles have a giant hole in the middle of the shift pattern. I know that lots of people don't seem to care what gear they are in but that's mostly because they don't understand shift patterns and how they can benefit you while riding. Again, think if the gearing before the ride so that you don't have to think about it during the ride.

I didn't say anything about mountain bikes. I was talking about mountainous bike paths...as in paved paths in the Colorado mountains. The bicyclist who was struggling to get started was on a road bike with a compact double.

I'm not sure you understand chainline. cny-bikeman is absolutely correct that the middle ring of a triple is dead center on the cassette. The outer ring on a compact...or any double...is further outboard than the middle ring of a triple.

Perhaps you should review ryanbent's original post. I don't seem to find anything there which limits the discussion as severely as you want to limit it. And your statement of "maybe it has something to do with there being no benefit to the triple" opened the door wide.

Or are you saying that if we don't agree with you that we should just shut up? Good luck with that.

Right...I think if the OP wanted a discussion on what is better, a double or a triple he would have asked that. The title is clearly about "the move by some to go to an 11 by 2" -- and the perceived reasons they may be doing that.

Just pointing out that you're derailing. Pun intended :lol:

It's all good man...3x works for you, 2x works for me. I like to focus on riding and having fun while I'm riding, and my double helps me do that.

I never leave the 50T chaining. 12-30 10 speed in the back.

Been contemplating taking off the front derailleur, 34T chaining, shifter and putting on a 50T narrow/wide chaining for a 1x set up.

"Cause people like to urinate on other people's feet! It's the way of the web.


They would love my tourer with seven speed half-step (11-34) and 44-40-20 in front. I have 18 separate usable gears. 14 of them are spaced at 10%.

Slightly OT - I saw a review of SRAM e-TAP's next offering that might just have a single button with UP and DOWN, and the electronics will figure out which gear is the next bigger or smaller and go there even if it requires shifting front and back both.

I love gearing threads.

Some, on several forums. More and more.

I think things are moving to compact doubles and the like simply because that's what's "new." The majority of riders will think that something "new" must be better when in fact, as discussed above, a triple is better for most people. And yes, doubles are easier to adjust than triples.

I personally love the triple on my summer commuter/rain bike. When I'm commuting I'm 100% of the time in the middle ring. (Which means that if the bike were solely a commuter, I'd only need a single ring.) When I'm riding it on the road (for an actual ride, not commuting) I find myself often in the middle ring, toward the bottom of the cassette. Plenty of space above me to downshift for small hills, and a quick flick of the left lever when I'm about to head downhill is all I need. I find shifting my triple MUCH easier than shifting my compact double. With that said, I'm not sure if I use the other two rings enough to have them on that bike. They probably only get used 15% of the time when I'm riding the bike for a ride and not a commute. Where as on my compact double it's a 70-30 split between the big and small rings respectively.

OT

Jeesus... I'd love to see your elevation gain for the year if that's you normal "ride!" And also your top speed. That'd be a fun ride!


But not on my current bike with it's gearing. Poor thing does NOT have climbing gears... ask me how I know.

Given it was posted by DiabloScott, I think it's Mt. Diablo. Looks like you need a single speed for the constant grade!

The point of this thread, for anyone missing it:

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...44/247/297.png