poperszky

I was looking at a 2010 Giant Defy 1 this weekend and noticed that it had 3 front crank sprockets, while most of the bikes in it's class (as well as the 2011 model) only have 2. Now I have been concentrating on cadence this summer, trying to maintain a constant cadence and letting the shifting do the work for me (can't believe the difference this has made in my cycling), but how many gears to I really need?

Terry

BarracksSi

How many you need, at least at this point, matters less than how wide of a range you have available. Even then, the top end -- tallest gear, fastest gear, whatever -- is likely to be plenty fast for anything you'll do, while the low end is what you need make a decision about -- how low do you want to go.

It's better to have a bottom gear that's short enough to crank up that steep hill at the end of your ride than it is to have to walk. But, you might not need a stump-puller gear after all, whether it's because that last hill isn't very steep, or you're pretty good at climbing, etc etc.

So, then, decide. If you have a triple crank, but never use the granny ring for anything, you don't need it. If you do use the granny ring, but you still aren't using the biggest 3 or 4 cogs in the cassette, you probably don't really need the granny ring, either, because you'd get the same gear ratios by using the middle chainring and biggest cogs.

My first road bike came with a triple, and I never used the granny ring for anything. I replaced it with a double.

Take some time and fiddle with Sheldon Brown's gear calculator. In particular, look at how the gear combos overlap -- you might have a choice of 30 ratios on a triple, but many of them will be redundant.
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Menel

What do you have now, how many gears does it have, is it sufficient for you?

I've got 2x10 now... but 2x9 was plenty for maintaining good cadence. Only time cadence suffers are on steep mountain climbs I've been forced as far down as the 60's.

dstrong 

First, a few vocabulary notes to help you:

• Chainring - The term for a front "sprocket"
• Crankset - The assembly consisting of the chainrings and crankarms
• Triple - The conventional term for a crankset with three chainrings. A fairly standard triple setup is a 52/42/30 or a 50/39/30
• Double - The conventional term for a crankset with two chainrings. Can be a "standard" double (big ring has typically 53 teeth, small ring typically 39) or a "compact" double (50/34)
• And for good measure, Cogset or Cluster is the group of cogs that make up the gears on the rear wheel

So...with respects to your question, "it depends" is the correct answer as previously noted. Do you have a lot of hills? That's really going to determine what gearing is best for you.

Many say that the compact double is "the new" triple. You can achieve a very wide range of gears using a compact double and a wide cogset on the rear (12-28 or even a 12 - 32). The trade-off is that there are big gaps in cadence as you shift each gear in back when compared to a cogset with a tighter range, such as a 12-25.

Many contend that a triple can shift poorly and is more difficult to setup.

I have a triple on my Interloc (with a 12-23 cogset) and a compact double on my ParkPre (with a 12-27 cogset). I enjoy riding them both. With my triple, I can spend a lot of my ride on my middle ring (42 teeth), only shifting to the small ring for climbing and to the big ring for descents. With my double, I shift more on the front.

So...what kind of terrain do you ride?

bradtx

Terry, It also depends on how the crankset and cassette are geared. For example a 53/52-42-30 with a close ratio casette can be quite nice for 98% of riding and the 30T held in reserve for the tough climb. The advantage of a 10S or 11S rear for the recreational cyclist is that the 8/9 middle gears can be close ratio with the two outer gears the seldom used extreme condition gears.

The number of gears is also a marketing tool. While someone can proclaim with pride from a soapbox that he has the most number of gears available on a bicycle, the unspoken truth is that there is also the greatest number of nearly redundant gear combos. Regearing a bicycle whether via a new crankset, chainrings or cassette is the biggest bang for the buck performance modification that one can do to tailor a bike to a cyclist's needs and preferences, if an honest assesment of what is really needed is performed beforehand.

Brad

slowandsteady

Are you overweight? Is it hilly where you ride?

BarracksSi

And that honest assessment, IMO, can only be done after getting some time on the bike.

If in doubt, I'd recommend getting a lower low range. Walking sucks, even if it motivates you to try harder next time. If you realize that you never use the lowest gears, you can choose something different later on.

poperszky

Ok, yes I am overweight, yes there are many hills (Although I avoid them where possible) where I ride. I am currently riding a Specialized Expedition (hybrid) that feels like it is made out of cast iron with a 3X9. That I don't know the number of teeth on the cogset or crankset (thanks Dstrong for the vocab lesson) tells you my level of expertise.

The fact that I live on the middle chain ring is what prompted me to ask the question. When I have quizzed a number of salesmen, their answer has always been that more gears equals "Smoother Shifting"). As I look at new bikes I guess I am going to have to undergo a paradigm shift and stop looking at them as a unit, but more as a place to start.

So, if I understand what I am hearing, whether I need a double or triple is not the correct question, but whether the low range or high range fit my level of expertise and the terrain that I will be riding in. If they don't then change them. Correct?

knobster

The salesmen are feeding you a line of crap. More gears <> smoother shifting. a 3xwhatever is not going to shift as well as a double simply because there is less gears to shift and the front derailleur doesn't have to move as far. The back is pretty much irrelevant.

A triple is usually always going to be good enough, but you may have to ask yourself if you'd ever need a triple. A double may not always work for you if you do decide to ride something a little more hilly. If it was me making this decision and I was new to cycling and overweight, I'd go with a triple. Worst case, you don't use the granny gear.

(3000 posts! Thank you, I'm outta here!)

bradtx

Terry, The cast iron feel may be due to tires not pressurized properly. Pump them up to the max PSI printed on the sidewall and see if that helps.

If you're new or returning to cycling for health benefits a hybrid is a good choice to begin with. Often with saddle time the rider moves either to the road or mountain bike direction and keeps the hybrid for crappy weather/commuter/beater bike chores. The Clydesdale/Athena forum is a great place for riding and equipment tips applicable to the heavy rider.

Brad

dstrong 

A lot of good feedback for you here, Terry. Very un-BF like!

The cast iron feeling could be due to the tire pressure but also because those Expeditions are tanks. Very heavy and setup for cruising around the neighborhood or light trail riding on a nice day. Also sports 26" tires, so personally I'd refer to it as a "Light duty Mountain Bike"...hybrids I tend to associate with 700mm rims (standard road bike wheel). The "Sirrus" models from Specialized are more along the line of what I call a hybrid.

For a first road bike, with your weight and the availability of hills in your area, I think a triple is a fine idea. Don't think of it as 20 gears (double) versus 30 gears (triple)...think of it as two ranges of gears...low/medium, high versus three ranges of gears...low, medium, high.

Some people love climbing and some people avoid it like the plague. As you increase your fitness level and increase you're mileage, you may find that you can't ride the distances you want to ride without tackling some of the hills you're currently avoiding. As previously stated, walking up a hill sucks...so better to have the gears at your disposal to conquer the hills than the alternative.

slowandsteady

Based on what you have said, I think having a triple is the way to go. It will expand your range a bit. With a triple you likely won't need to avoid the hills.

To put it in simple terms. The granny gear on a triple will allow you to go as slow as ~4 mph, while the smallest gear on a compact double is more like 7 mph at the slowest. That means that the triple will allow you to go very, very slow up a hill which will greatly increase the range and steepness of hills that you can tackle without getting overly exhausted. 3- 4 mph is about as slow as an average person a ride a bike without falling over anyway. And 4 mph on a bike is still faster than walking. As your fitness improves and your weight drops, you will be able to increase your speed on hills.

joe_5700

As far as chainrings go, less is more in my opinion. All of my bikes are compact doubles. You can always add a cassette with a 28 cog to help with hills.

cappuccino911

not sure how overweight you are but I'm a healthy and fit 235 (i'm 6'3" tall) and i ride not only a triple but I have a 11-32 9speed casette in the back. on the biggest of hills that I face I absolutely use the 30/32 combo. For those who say that triples don't shift well, in my opinion they either have a crappy drivetrain or don't know how to adjust properly, my triple shifts near flawless. The fact is that regardless of how strong and fit I am, i'm still 235lbs and that is going to make hills tough.

FYI, the defy 1 is available as either a triple or a compact double. If you go with the compact double, you should definately do so with a casette on the back that goes up to 32 teeth and this will probably still give you the same range of gears as the triple with a 28 tooth cog on the back.

Lastly, STOP AVOIDING THE HILLS! they are a ***** to get up but a helluva lot of fun to go down!

caloso

A 30x27 low gear (which a typical triple may have) is low enough to get you up pretty much any grade. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Especially when you're starting out. As you get stronger and more experienced, you may decide a double, either compact or traditional, is better but for now I'd go with the triple.

BarracksSi

Right, that's what I'd say. On my road bike, I have a compact 50/34 with an 11-26 cassette, and I've used the lowest 34-26 combo when I'm out of spunk on a long uphill. It's possible to get a super-wide-range cassette with a 32t big cog (which means I'd have to change to a rear derailleur with a longer cage), but its disadvantage would be bigger jumps between gears... but that might not be a problem, either.

Bicycling.com talks here about Sram's Apex groupset, which is new and has been marketed as their entry-level road group. The thing to notice is that they have the option of a wide-range rear cassette to get nearly a 1:1 ratio with a compact double crankset. Check out what he thinks about having a wide range with bigger gaps between gears.
https://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjusti...ad-group-apex/