On Apr 18, 1:03 pm, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll say it, and I'm definitely not "in denial." How is a triple > "difficult"? Ignore the granny and it's a double. But unlike a double, > if you /need/ the lowesst range, it's there.
Ok ... a triple is not "difficult". It is, however, fussier. When I went 10-speed Ergo in 2001, I also went triple, and I loved it. With a 34 in front, I could run a 12-23 on the rear in CO, where hilly paved roads are engineered for icy conditions and are therefore less steep than in other parts of the country, and I had fabulous gear selection. As an old friend put it, "I have gears like rich people have money." Five years ago I went compact double on everything. My triples -- I have two of them -- have been sitting on the shelf ever since. Shifting the front is so much more positive with the doubles. The need to trim is reduced, I would guess, by 80-90%. But then, as I said, I'm an Ergo guy. I no longer shift for myself. So to speak. I have little people in my levers who do that for me. :-) Getting up the hill is sufficient demand on the little bit of RAAM I have to offer. (Get it, son? That's a joke, I say, a joke!) If one enjoys being an expert friction shifter, then one might actually enjoy the added fussiness of a triple. There you have it. Chacun a son gout. To each his own. De gustibus non est disputandum. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Shall we dance?* ~~~ "I'd like to thank all the little people who made this possible..." *Bonus points for naming the movie. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
