40T Cassette On A Road Bike

[Tigerbiten]

But I think it's entirely understandable that most road bikes, used for day rides, for most people, a double with modern wide range cassette makes most sense.

That only works if the bike has gears in the right range.
A beginners bike wants gears from the low twenties to just over one hundred inches.
I see not point in being able the to pedal downhill at +30 mph in a 125" gear if you're going to struggle to cycle up the same hill going the other way.
I think the best cassette to fit with a compact double is a 13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32-36-42 10 speed.
It has very even steps between the gears without any one being silly large.
The 40"-80" flatland gears are also across the centre of the cassette.
Drop the 42 sprocket and it also works well with a road triple.

Saying that I like my twin IHG, twin chainring and single sprocket setup, as it give me over triple the gear range of a standard bike.

Luck ...........

[cycle tramp]

Why are triples out of fashion?

Simple really.
Three sets of gears.
Rear cassette is one set, and using three chainrings gives another two sets using the same cassette.
What's not to like?

...I wonder if it's because a transmission with a triple chainring takes longer to understand and master, a bit like friction gear shifters... if a potential customer can't understand and make the product work straight away then they are unlikely to become a customer..
..But equally unless you live in Wales, Devon, Cornwall, or take up loaded touring, I do wonder if there is a need for a triple chainring. Certainly when I had mine (and later experimented with a quadruple chainset) all I felt I had really done was to complicate a simple piece of machinery all for the sake of attempting to cycle a couple of steep hills that I could have avoided or walked up

[rareposter]

50/34 with 11-34 is a range of 454%

my 48/38/26 with 11-34 is a range of 572%

I wouldn't call those "similar".

I've had an even greater range, when the inner was a 24, which worked fine.

Sure, you get a wider range but at the expense of a large number of gears in the middle which are virtually identical
38-15 is the same as 48-19
48-27 is almost identical to 38-21
There's loads of crossover.

The whole point of a double is that you just use a wider range cassette - so where you'd use a triple with an 11-34, with a double you'd use an 11-42 or 11-46. Same range, less weight, more usable gears without the crossover, plus shifting on the rear is much easier than the front, especially under load so it's more efficient.

[djnotts]

After many years of advocating triples I consider that the availability of 40 and larger rears shifts the balance very much in favour of doubles, even standard 50/34s for other than heavy touring, which I do not do.

[Stevek76]

Interesting - at a rough guess I'd typically use my 4th or 5th sprocket - 70-78" looking at a gear calculator. Very different riding styles we have!

Yea. I do change gear a lot, counted close to 90 over the < 3 mile trip to work.

Might be partly a desire to get a bit of initial distance to motor vehicles behind at lights.
I don't really seem to have the same problem with mashing a little in the big ring on the road bike (which is also 'old' so a 11-28 10sp) out in the countryside.

But equally unless you live in Wales, Devon, Cornwall, or take up loaded touring, I do wonder if there is a need for a triple chainring.

Well they're quite nice to be able to get around hilly cities with shopping etc particularly if there's a need to get somewhere without getting too much of a sweat on in warmer weather but also have the bike be able to coast fast downhill.

I admit that is quite niche however. In the main genres and sub genres of cycling driving mid and higher end purchases then (for most) doubles and 1x are a better choice.

plus shifting on the rear is much easier than the front, especially under load so it's more efficient.

The smaller gaps on triples make them much more tolerant to loaded shifts I've found. That said I mostly use that bike as a 1x.

[biketips666]

Why are triples out of fashion?

Simple really.
Three sets of gears.
Rear cassette is one set, and using three chainrings gives another two sets using the same cassette.
What's not to like?

...I wonder if it's because a transmission with a triple chainring takes longer to understand and master....

Not for me it wasn't. The bike I usually rode before this has an 8 speed hub gear. I had no problem at all "understanding" the triple.

[NickJP]

Since the advent of clusters with more than seven cogs, I've gradually eliminated triple chainrings from all our bikes except the tandems. Most of my bikes for JRA now use 42/29 chainrings and 11-34 cassettes. 42x11 is good for 50kph - if I find myself going faster than that down a hill, I just get into a tuck, and 29x34 gets me up the steepest hill around here - about 22% - without feeling that I'm going to burst a gasket.

If I look at the data my Garmin collects during a ride on my bike with eTap shifting, I get a count of the number of front and rear shifts performed. For example, on today's ride - a fairly hilly 70km with just under 1000m of climbing, I shifted between the front chainrings 10 times (down to the small ring five times and up again) and shifted the rear 315 times. I'd estimate that on a ride like that, the small chainring might get used for four or five kilometres of the total distance - just on the hills that are long enough or steep enough that the "big" chainring won't get me up them with a moderate level of effort.

[wirral_cyclist]

But for the vast majority of cyclists who don't carry loads of luggage around, 50/34 and 11-34 covers their needs, and a triple is unnecessary. Which is why they're out of favour.

I'm not at all against them when needed - our tandem has 46/36/24 11-36 and that would be a good setup for a laden tourer also used for general riding I think.

I must be very substandard rider then as 34-34 is just too high for me, even unladen, my last bike had 24-34 and that was perhaps too low without a load but at least I had a choice of using it! I still think most bikes are supplied with what the makers (and you) think we need rather than what we'd like.

[roubaixtuesday]

But for the vast majority of cyclists who don't carry loads of luggage around, 50/34 and 11-34 covers their needs, and a triple is unnecessary. Which is why they're out of favour.

I'm not at all against them when needed - our tandem has 46/36/24 11-36 and that would be a good setup for a laden tourer also used for general riding I think.

I must be very substandard rider then as 34-34 is just too high for me, even unladen, my last bike had 24-34 and that was perhaps too low without a load but at least I had a choice of using it! I still think most bikes are supplied with what the makers (and you) think we need rather than what we'd like.

Sure, like I said, each to their own and I do agree more choice would be good.

I don't think it's at all true though that modern bikes are somehow getting worse in this regard.

Here's a 1982 Dawes catalogue.

The Galaxy (touring bike, note) comes with a 52/40 double and 14-28 cassette.

That's substantially higher gearing than a typical modern road bike!

https://dawescycles.wordpress.com/portf ... catalogue/

I think in the old days pushing uphill was more accepted.

[Blondie]

Why are triples out of fashion?

Simple really.
Three sets of gears.
Rear cassette is one set, and using three chainrings gives another two sets using the same cassette.
What's not to like?

Your so old fashioned Mick! bet you don't have disc brakes or tubeless tyres....get with it Mick F!!!

Cheers James

I have a triple, running friction bar ends, with hydraulic discs and tubeless. Has that blown your mind ?

[Mick F]

When I bought the 531 Raleigh Clubman in Dales Cycles Glasgow back in 1982, it came as standard ............ can't remember the gearing spec. Double Raleigh chainset ......... perhaps 13-26 6sp Suntour freewheel and perhaps 52/42 chainset.

Rode it to work and back initially 14miles there and back Helensburgh to Clyde Submarine Base, and later after moving out to Lomondside, 28miles there and back to the Base.

It wasn't until moving to Plymouth in 1985 that I needed a wider range of gearing.
Went to Paignton to a bike shop. Forget the name of the place. Bought a Stronglight 99 (still got it!) double 52/36 and picked sockets off the Suntour board at the back of the counter. Still have some of those sprockets.

Eventually, I had the gearing perfect for my uses, though moved to Cornwall, and needed to adjust again.
Simple in those days, just picking sprockets off the board.
Swapped the 36t inner to 38t and changed the outer from 52t to 53t.
The world was my oyster and I swapped this and that as the fancy took me.
Freewheel Catalogue was king back then, so mail-order was the way.

Eventually, I put the Clubman back to original and sold it to fund the buying of the Mercian frame. By that time, I had all sorts of bits and pieces with the gearing, and all I needed was steering equipment, pedals and wheels etc. Bought the wheels from Ricci down in Redruth. Mavic rims and Campag hubs and still used the Suntour cogs. Bought Campag Victory DT levers and a Campag front and rear mechs. Went from 6sp to 7sp as well!

Left the RN in 1996 and moved house and became involved in a house renovation .......... and Mercian was put aside.
Come 2004, I got back to cycling, and then fitted a Campag triple and a Campag cassette hub and Campag Ergos.
Still have the Campag friction DT levers.

The rest is history.

[biketips666]

But for the vast majority of cyclists who don't carry loads of luggage around, 50/34 and 11-34 covers their needs, and a triple is unnecessary. Which is why they're out of favour.

I'm not at all against them when needed - our tandem has 46/36/24 11-36 and that would be a good setup for a laden tourer also used for general riding I think.

I must be very substandard rider then as 34-34 is just too high for me, even unladen, my last bike had 24-34 and that was perhaps too low without a load but at least I had a choice of using it! I still think most bikes are supplied with what the makers (and you) think we need rather than what we'd like.

Hear hear! My thoughts exactly. If the super low, allegedly (by some here) unnecessarily low, bottom gear is there, at least I can use it. Otherwise I'm straining. Or standing. Or pushing. I have a 24 chainring waiting to be fitted. My RD will allow me to fit a cassette with a 36 (per Shimano's spec). When I get round to it I might try doing that. Which drops me to 18" I think, but still leaves a reasonably speedy top gear.

This forum, like many others is largely populated by, dare I say even dominated by, very experienced cyclists. That isn't of course any sort of surprise, coming under the classification of "no s**t Sherlock", "case closed Columbo" etc.

It does however mean that comments and advice are often, perhaps usually, made from that perspective. The people I'm interested in encouraging are new cyclists. Because I was one, not that long ago. And they need a low bottom gear. One they can get up hills in, without standing and without too much strain.

I am willing to bet good money that there are plenty of double chain ring bikes, geared too high, sitting in garages unused, because the buyers, new to cycling, found they couldn't get up a few hills and concluded that they weren't fit enough or couldn't handle a bike properly. Or just found the experience unpleasant.

As I get fitter and learn how to cope with hills* I find I need the bottom gear(s) less and less. And in fact have taken to making a note on my phone of what gear I get up specific hills in, on my regular routes. And I'm getting fitter, or my legs are getting stronger, or something. But here's the thing:

In my first few months of riding I wouldn't have got up those hills at all if I didn't have a low bottom gear. So I would either have stopped going that way, and/or stopped cycling. I would have been forced on to far less bike friendly routes, would have had a great deal less choice, and if I were a commuter may not have been able to bike to work at all.

It would be good if more posters here, instead of looking at things with the benefit of decades and thousands of miles of cycling, imagined they were a middle-aged, non-sporty, not particularly fit, person new to cycling. Because that's what is needed if cycling is to become a common part of everyday life, whereas at the moment it's viewed as being a sport activity by most people.

*I'm sure I have got fitter and that my legs specifically have developed stronger whatever-muscle-gets-me-up-hills. I also think some of it is mental. These days, at the bottom of one of my regular hills, however steep, I simply think - "yes, it's steep, yes, you'll be puffing and panting, yes, your heart will be pounding. But if your legs keep going round then eventually you'll get to the top".

[Mick F]

It would be good if more posters here, instead of looking at things with the benefit of decades and thousands of miles of cycling, imagined they were a middle-aged, non-sporty, not particularly fit, person new to cycling. Because that's what is needed if cycling is to become a common part of everyday life, whereas at the moment it's viewed as being a sport activity by most people.

Utterly and completely and wholeheartedly agree with you.

The trouble is, bike shops sell bikes that sell, and sporty stuff sells.
They don't sell bikes that are good for novices or good to be modified as fitness increases or to people who live in hilly areas who don't want an MTB but want a lightweight road bike.

My post, above, was an illustration of what I did.
The preamble to it is that my dad bought me a bike when I was twelve. I was still riding it into my late 20s. I gave it away to a neighbour's son, and was given a Raleigh Esquire - far more lightweight than the gaspipe Hercules that Dad bought me.

Rode that Esquire for a couple of years to work and back, then sold it and bought a cheap racer. Rubbish really, but it was faster and more efficient than a sit-up-and-beg Raleigh.

Meanwhile, I learned what I wanted, and what I wanted from a bike.
It was a long shallow learning curve, but you are utterly correct in what you say.

[Tigerbiten]

Here's a 1982 Dawes catalogue.

The Galaxy (touring bike, note) comes with a 52/40 double and 14-28 cassette.

That's substantially higher gearing than a typical modern road bike!

The 14-28 probably was a standard 14-16-18-21-24-28 6 speed block.
This has an average 14% step between the gears.
Double that and you get a 30% step between two gears.
40t chainring x a 1.30 step between gears gives you a 52t big chain ring.
Expand it to a triple keeping the same 2 sprocket gears to a chainring gear gives you 52-40-30 road triple.
Keeping that ratio means that if you shifted a chainring, you only need to shift 1 sprocket to get the next gear.
Or if you shifted the front early because you where coming up to a hill, you only needed to shift 2 sprockets to get the same gear.

Ever wondered why a compact double is a 50/34 and not some other size.
It's because it fits 3 x 14% gears between the chainrings.

A 48-36-24 works as a 2 sprocket:3 sprocket triple.
Again making it easy to know what to shift at the back when you shift a front ring.

I find the easiest double/triples to work with are when the duplicates do line up 2 or 3 sprockets apart depending on chainrings.

Luck ......

[biketips666]

Or if you shifted the front early because you where coming up to a hill, you only needed to shift 2 sprockets to get the same gear.

Yes. One of the good things about my triple is that each of the chainring shifts is equivalent to 2 cassette shifts. So often, depending which direction I'm shifting, I don't even bother doing a double shift, especially if shifting to a larger chainring. That's usually going to happen because I want to go faster, for some reason, so I'm happy for the cadence to be a bit slow until I get up to the speed I was going to end up at anyway.

And there's another "perspective" thing. I'm not looking to always get the "perfect" cadence, measured as some most efficient physiological power meter thing. So pedalling a bit too slow, or too fast, for a while, means diddly squat to me. I'm not trying to squeeze the last ounce of "efficiency" out of the bike. I prefer to pay attention to the world around me, the cows, birds, countryside.