Agreed. Speaking only for myself, the reason for using a triple, is for
loaded hauling. I have plenty low enough low on my compact double for other
riding (44/30 with a 12-36 9-speed cassette). Obviously, this depends on
terrain, one's riding habits, and vigor. However, what I fail to
Footnote: I do love the 10t jump compared to the 14-16t also, but with the
aforementioned gears I don't front shift often enough that it's a big
deal. For 9s I would run what I already mentioned, but if going to 11s I
would bump up to a 11-42 cassette, now that the jumps are reasonable, and
Admittedly I skimmed (at best) this rather lengthy thread, but wanted to
chime in and agree with these points which have undoubtedly been made:
1. A typical triple's benefit is that it usually means a lot less front
shifting compared to a double, even though that's a bit counter-intuitive.
A
So far I 've not noted anyone else posting my particular combination of
integers; 44-34-24 on a Velocity Orange triple.
It started out with a 48t big ring, but my late 90s XT rear derailleur
couldn't quite deal with the 48x36 cross chained combination. I'm smart
just enough to know that I'm
"Can those Ultegra triples be found in a square taper or are they all
Octalink?"
All Octalink. The previous gen 7/8-spd era Ultegra square taper (600
tri-color) were all doubles, if you search long and hard you can find 105
triples from that period but I don't think many were produced.
Joe
The one I know of is 9s Octalink. I don't think there was a hollowtech
version but happy to be corrected. You can get an earlier era 7s. RSX
triple that's square taper.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:05 AM Tim Bantham wrote:
> Can those Ultegra triples be found in a square taper or are they all
>
Can those Ultegra triples be found in a square taper or are they all
Octalink?
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 8:23:10 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
> Ultegra 52x42x30 makes a nice compact double. Just remove the 52 (free)
> and put a guard in its place ($15). Now you've got a 42x30 with
Ultegra 52x42x30 makes a nice compact double. Just remove the 52 (free)
and put a guard in its place ($15). Now you've got a 42x30 with the
ability to put a smaller ring on the 74 bcd if need be. The skeleton key
is indeed a useful FD.
Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Wednesday, January
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!
I swapped out an Ultegra 52x42x30 for a RBW/Silver 42x28 and never looked
back. (Yes, that little Microshift "skeleton key" front derailer is
brilliant). And my Yuba cargo bike got the RBW/Silver 38x24 because the
44x34x24 offered no advantages for a
I did that for years with 48/38/28 triples and close ratio (13-21
commuting, 12-19 gofast) 7 speed drivetrains. It worked well, with most
riding in the middle ring. ?This ws
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:02 PM Andrew Turner
wrote:
> I love a triple paired with an 8 speed or less corncob cassette
Although I'm not Bill (middle name is William, though), I'm using a 26-42
(triple with chainguard) and an older "road double" front derailleur, and
the FD doesn't hit the chainstay. I have the FD a wee higher than might be
absolutely perfect in order to clear the chainstay, but it shifts just
@Steven -
Understood.
Kim Hetzel.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:
> Kim, I may put a chainguard on, but Riv’s are for 110 bcd, and this crank
> has a 94 bcd. I didn’t have time before I left to order one and the
> chainrings I had on hand were not the
Kim, I may put a chainguard on, but Riv’s are for 110 bcd, and this crank
has a 94 bcd. I didn’t have time before I left to order one and the
chainrings I had on hand were not the right size.
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:17 AM Kim H. wrote:
> @Steven -
>
@Steven -
As a suggestion to elevate your ridiculous appearance of your crank set by
purchasing a chain guard. This might help you:
https://www.rivbike.com/products/silver-chainring-guard?_pos=1&_sid=2b21174cc&_ss=r
Kim Hetzel.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler
For anyone interested, SOMA has a New Albion XDT(Sugino clone) triple
crankset (silver, 170 or 175mm) on 65% off sale through midnight tonight,
January 9. Only $49.00 using code *newyear6524 *.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:25:46 PM UTC-8 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
> A 24/34 is the same as a
I don't believe anyone has mentioned the significant downside to a triple
drivetrain: setting up a triple front derailleur. Oh wait, I forgot I'm in
crusty friction shifting land. Setting it up for indexed shifting is an
absolute nightmare. Doubles are bad enough.
Will
On Tuesday, January
A 24/34 is the same as a 36/51 in gear inches. So there's no advantage to a
triple if you're looking for a low gear.
I moved to a 1x for all my bikes because it turned out that dropped shifts
into the granny were causing me to stand up on many climbs when I should
have shifted. Since there's
If I had a track bike and a track to ride I'd ring a fixed gear or
singlespeed if I wanted to be blasphemous about it. Otherwise 2x and 3x. I
always liked to joke that those who choose a 1x always believe they're
"right" , all-the-time ! Ahahahahaha. C'mon, you gotta laugh at the
hilarity of
I love a triple paired with an 8 speed or less corncob cassette matched to
downtube shifters. That's an amazing roadie configuration right there. Not
to mention bomb proof. But I think what rides equally as nice is 11 speed
2x setups with a wide range cassette in the rear. The choice for me
Seems like a lot of grief.
Fair winds,
Captain Conway Bennett
239.877.4119
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, 5:36 PM DavidP wrote:
> I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end
> up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for
> these bikes I like
I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end
up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for
these bikes I like it fine.
In line with Bill's point, pairing a smaller front step with a wider range
cassette (but not too crazy) can work
Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with
big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I
frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear
range with 24-34-44 or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear
John emphatically asked (with seven question marks):
"Question to Bill: Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the
chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???"
That depends on the front derailleur and the chain stay.
Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Tuesday,
I had that same thought, Bill. The big ring on my triples are always the
least used.
"Unfortunately," my brank is a 110bcd with the Bikingreen 46/30 chainring
set... machined from one piece of aluminum.
But if a WI VBC crank pops up used, I'll make a dash for it!
--Ben
On Tuesday, January 9,
One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes triples
make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 40 lbs
on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or steep
hills. When home in central New Hampshire many of my favorite roads are
I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe
even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring
guard.
I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there was
a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if
Bill L stated: " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring
before going to a triple"
Question to Bill: Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the
chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
PS I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very
Ben
You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette. If it were me, I'd experiment
with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple. 46x11 is pretty darn
high for a commuter/city bike. Anything higher than a 4:1 in my book is
for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph. That is a real
I might agree that a triple is unnecessary unless you really like pedaling
downhill, but I'm off the 1x bandwagon. My Riv Custom (parts currently
transferred to a Clem) was set up with a 34 x 11-50 11-speed, SRAM Rival 1
rear mech. It's fine for most of the roads around here but there's a
I read that same VO post and decided it made a fine case for 1x. If you
are spending most of your time in the middle ring of a triple, why ride a
triple? I get it for racing, or keeping up with a fast group, but I don't
do those things.
My most recently acquired (old) bike has a triple,
I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My
commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding
the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than
50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down
I dissent. Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and so
are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s. I have 1X 10 one two bikes, and
love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 11-51
cassette for my BMC Monstercross. The whole drivetrain cost less than
For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear because
people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push through if
its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now its
shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available.
I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that when I’m
in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to stay upright.
On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I find it easier to
just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we
VO makes a good case for triples:
https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
*Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the
emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find
themselves primarily using the middle ring,
35 matches
Mail list logo
