In light of this thread, here's my overly masculine CAAD9 with a triple on it. <3

You could always take up teaching chorus.

BTW, are there any rapids in NJ?

I bet she knows how to use them!

There's water...
There is some whitewater in the state (a lot of it tricky stuff that I don't do).
The Delaware has some play spots in the NJ section (wingdam)

Wow, in 9 pages we have gone from triples, to derogatory slang, to music. Got to love BF

A long time ago, in a land far far away, I went to college to be a music teacher and left a mechanical engineer. I have been told that I made the right choice:


I'm the guy murdering the vocals.

"Carry on Wayward Son" is for Chicks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pS5x...eature=related

This little guy is one of my favorites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IXa2pNGVj8

Yikes! that one busy kid.

This question comes up all the time. The only arguments against triples are weight and "shifting performance". The performance argument is a non argument. If the triple front setup is aligned properly, triple setups work just as well between the larger two chainrings as do doubles, because the shape of triple front derailleur is different. The problem is that people adjust them incorrectly--including bike mechanics in boutique stores that exclusively stock bikes with doubles... The weight argument is true but completely negligible--the increased weight makes no difference.

To me, the only negative about a triple is the increased cost and pain of finding replacement chainrings and such on ebay. If you don't have hills big enough to need the small ring, than a double might be more cost-effective.

But when you need that small ring for a long, sustained climb, you are really glad you have it. And if you don't have the small ring and really need it, you'll swear to yourself right then and there that your next crankset will be a triple.

Compact doubles come close, but there are still many hills in Oregon that absolutely require that 30t small ring.

No triples are for tools like you who make generalizations about females in your dumb threads.

Yeah, koffee's back. Deal.

Easy there, look at the date, its been delt with.ok?

I know. I felt the need to emote regardless.

Wow, back on topic, didn't think that would be possible. Of course no new ground is being covered here, just the same tired old arguments.

Shifting performance is a very big catch-all. It also includes issues of poor chainline, q-factor, increased chances of dropped chains, more difficult to set up properly to work well in all 3 rings, more front shifting required to go through the same range of gearing as a double with a wide casstte, etc, etc.

Weight always makes a difference. It's just a question of how much, at what cost, and is it important.

To you, sure. Obviously other people don't feel the same way.

Or you'll swear that your next cassette will have a larger cog

That is completely false. There may be hills for which you require a 30t small ring, but the hill does not require any particular gearing.

I've listened to a lot of these and the best preteen I've heard is this at 10yrs old and female: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOL6q...eature=related
Another from the same 10 year old, this is killer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIq6...eature=related

It's amazing some of the stuff you can find on U-tube, but begs the question...will any of these ever make it to the big time?

Yeah, so I ride a triple because I'm slow, fat and weak.

But here's a story. Riding one day with a buddy, and a female rider pulls up behind us. She starts chatting it up about her race the next day and asks if she can tag along. She asks what our intended route is and if we plan any big hills, because she doesn't want to overexert the day before a race. We tell her we'll take some moderate hills. It soon becomes obvious she's using us to draft so she can save energy. That's cool, whatever. Soon we come to one hill that we consider moderate and she starts protesting about our choice. She's got to stand on her double setup while my friend and I spin, easily keeping pace. After the ride, she admits she dislikes hills, and opines that most racers do. That's why there are virtually no races in our region (there was one last year, but apparently it was deemed too hilly by most of the participants). Most of the races she participates in are in Pennsylvania and south.

Don't get me wrong. I know many road racers train on hills, and this particular woman's preference to avoid them is a personal choice. However, I believe she said she is Cat 2...and she has been Cat 1 in the past, so she's not exactly a slouch. But I do notice on most of my rides that there are a scarcity of riders on some of the more difficult hills. They stick to the faster, better paved, less hilly roads. I do see them descending some of the hills sometimes, but rarely if ever climbing.

Now, is this a function of the equipment defining the nature of racing? Or are most riders who like racing less inclined to punish themselves on hills? Or both? Or could it be that my observations are purely anecdotal in a region where competitive cycling isn't very big?

I will add that while racers in the TdF don't ride triples, many participants in the PBP do, where it's acceptable. In this case, I do wonder if the equipment shapes the nature of each event.

Yes

Its a good question I hope so some of them deserve it. I wonder who does the set up for the young girl youput up? That was some real nice distortion, just the right amount of growl to it.

No offense to women, and I know a few who can kick my ass, but a woman cat 2 is not the same as men's cat 2. I was in a race last year where the women 1/2 were combined with us (cat 4) as well as the 17-18 yr old juniors and all but 1 of the women were dropped by the end.

I'm asking for trouble now

Don't get me started.

Your arguments sadly fall right where the bicyle parts manufacturers want them to--on the side of making you want to buy lighter, stuff and more of it. I stand by my statements. There are hills in Oregon that no Cat-1 rider could get up without a triple chainring. I've seen them try. They kill me on the flats, and I cruise by them in my third ring while they are pushing their bikes up the hill on foot.

(Peering from behind couch) Is it over yet?

Well, she claimed to have been around racing for a while, and it's her opinion most racers in this region don't train on many of the tougher hills. Based on my informal observations, this appears to be the case. Training groups seem to stick to more heavily trafficked roads, which just happen to be better paved and have more gradual elevation changes. I'm sure they also provide more opportunity for peloton training. But I very rarely see solo riders on some of the steeper grades I ride.

Could be that NJ riders are just wussy.

"cat 1" does not mean that someone will necessarily be a good climber. Plenty of people upgrade on crits or other other flat races. Show me a hill that someone "needs" a 30 chainring and I will show you a hill where someone is not putting out enough power. Somebody who puts out twice as much power/weight as you would not need nearly as much gearing as you would.

And as I've said before I have no problem with people who want to use triples, but don't pretend that they are necessary or necesarily better than a double for someone else.