2 vs. 3 ring

[gopherhockey]

Ok, so whats the deal with some bikes having all 3 rings up front and some only 2. I get the feeling that 3 is unnecessary... especially around here. One guy even went so far as to say people would make fun of me if I had 3 vs. 2.

I rode a new Madone 5.2 today (Trek 5200 replacement for 05') and it was very nice! I'm thinking of buying one. This one had 2 and I didn't see the need for the missing one. I assume it saves weight to have 2 as well...

[jonbodin]

I've got a 5200 Triple. I don't think I've used the 3rd chainring in the 11 months that I've had the bike. If I could do it over again I would have just bought the double. (I've read that hard-core roadies think a 3rd chainring is for wimps!). But I do love the bike especially the carbon frame absorbing bumps!! :banana:

[noise_is_life]

You don't need 3. The only time you should ever need 3 on a road bike is if you are touring fully loaded.

[destrago]

In my years of riding to and from school I've NEVER been down onto the smallest ring, I go between the middle and tallest rings. At one point during winter ridng my front derailur froze and I couldn't move the chain between chainrings - it took me about a month and a half to notice because I never shifted off the top ring.

-Tony

[syntaxjunkie]

I tiptoed over to the dark side last year and bought a road bike (a Salsa Campeon, which rocks). Being a mountain biker, I had the same question about the front rings. The answer I got was that if you're going to be doing most of your riding around here, i.e., not taking Alpe d'Huez anytime soon, two rings will do nicely.Thus far, I've found that to be the gospel truth.

On another note, you're getting a Madone? In addition to a Blur? Geez, do you and Liz want to adopt? :crazy2:

[PWAXON]

I have a triple on mine and agree with the rest of you it is for the most part never used. Also a triple doesn’t shift as well. When I replace it or get a new bike I think I will go with a FSA compact crank.

[EmL34]

Hey, I've never used the granny on my MTB around here. Does anyone make an MTB crankset with 2 rings?

[Magic]

Yes there are two ring crankset's out there for you to choose from for MTB'ng. Race Face makes one, Cook Bro's makes one also. I myself like three chain rings, bad knees at the end of a long day of climbing sure is nice to have that granny ring.:)

[Hathor]

On another note, you're getting a Madone? In addition to a Blur? Geez, do you and Liz want to adopt? :crazy2:Sorry, not everyone in this family gets that nice of bikes (just teasing ya John). Actually, I came home from the store with a road bike yesterday, and I think it's perfect for me...it's a Trek WSD 2300. Love it! John did show restraint, however, when they showed him the bikes costing 3x mine...he knew he better not even ride them. Anyway, there is a reason we don't have kids yet; they cost money we could be spending on ourselves.

[destrago]

Anyway, there is a reason we don't have kids yet; they cost money we could be spending on ourselves.
Amen to that one!

[PWAXON]

there is a reason we don't have kids yet; they cost money we could be spending on ourselves.
I hear ya there. By the time my kids are thru college and I have the money to buy what I want I will be too old to use it:D No regrets though.

[gopherhockey]

I should give props to the guys at Woodbury Penn Cycle as well - they were very patient and helpful with us mountain bikers turning into road riding wannabes... I haven't been a huge LBS person in the past so this was a good experience for me.

Sounds like 2 is the way to go... thanks for all your thoughts on this!

[halls]

If you do a triple ,make it a light weight crankset. High end only on a roadbike. Just in case you go to the big mountains or touring (loaded with all your gear) it will come in handy. You can always go with a double and put a 12/ 25 cassette on the back also.

[syntaxjunkie]

Anyway, there is a reason we don't have kids yet; they cost money we could be spending on ourselves.

Other than my ludicrously expensive taste in bikes, I assure you I'm quite affordable. I've been to college, have a good job, don't need to borrow your car, promise never to move into your basement, and won't throw parties at your house while you're gone. As kids go, I'd be a bargain. :banana:

[berrywise]

I would say I never use my inner ring on my mountain bike around here either except for when I go to The Farm. Those short little climbs I find impossible for me to do in anything but the easy gears.

But for most stuff around here a 34 tooth in the rear and a 32 tooth in middle up front is plenty easy enough to get up hills at Leb, Battle, Zinger etc.


Hey, I've never used the granny on my MTB around here. Does anyone make an MTB crankset with 2 rings?

[igor]

I have a triple but I am a wimp! If I stopped drinking beer I could go down to two.

[TomT]

There is more to the story than just 2 versus 3, when you start to calculate gear inches.

With 3 rings, you typically get a 52/42/32 tooth set up. With 2 you get a 53/39. So with 2 rings you will have more available top end, not as many options in the middle, and not as low on the bottom.

I rode for years with a triple and rarely used the 32, although it was nice to have available to help push the kids (and some adults) up hills. I also wished I had a 53 many times.

For my current road ride I never even considered a triple.

[funky-funky-chicken]

It is too bad that gearing isn't more commonly a matter of a personal choice dependent upon your riding style. Knowing one variable or another, it can be fun to play around with different gearing combinations... You can play with Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator and come up with all kinds of usable information: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

When it comes to gearing, I have elected to go with a compact double on my next road bike using 36T and 48T rings and a 12-23 cassette. I tend to ride with a fairly high cadence hovering around the 100 RPM. It provides more "usable" gearing closely around the sweet spot of where I do most of my riding. On my touring bike having a triple is a necessity; I use an Ultegra that I swapped out with 48, 38, and 24 tooth rings. While acceptable around town riding commuting and such, when I decide to dump the Ultegra, I will likely go with smaller gearing yet, probably something in the order of 46,34,20. Lower gearing would be nice when fully loaded.

Having coaxed enough people through the purchase of a new bicycle, I encourage people who are "on the fence" to go ahead and get the triple. It certainly is not a necessity, but adding something or making changes afterwards can be a difficult and expensive proposition. Hopefully, your purchase of new bike will be something that will last for many years. Perhaps you may travel out west and ride some mountains, or even something relatively local like the HORRIBLY HILLY 100 CENTURY which features 10,000 feet of climbing nearby in Wisconsin.Check out: http://www.silentsports.net/news_may_2003.html#6

The penalty for having a triple is pretty insignificant in the weight department and shifting performance should not be affected either, (if everything is properly adjusted.)

[SickBoy]

I typically ride a standard 53/39 on my bike. Doing crits and flat road races around here, I -never- get out of the 53. Sometimes training I use the 39 on hills.

For france, I switched to a 50/34 compact crankset and a 12-26 in back. the 34/26 was nice for over there, the only time I really felt overgeared was on the first kick up the Col de Sarenne - we were mashing our grannies going about 5 MPH. The girl who was with us had a 39/25 and she was hurting pretty bad.

For MN, I wouldn't get a triple on a proper road bike (especially a Madone). Touring bike... yeah, go for it.