Triple chainrings are, as we know, found on all kinds of bikes, including electrified bikes like mine. But the topic I wish to broach applies equally, I think, to both categories. And it actually arises out of my biking experiences prior to doing my electrification projects.
My enagement with bicycles dates way back, prior to the appearance of 6-cog freewheels (5 was max when I first got seriously involved). I was avidly tinkering with bikes, doing a bit of amateur racing and some cross-country touring back then. About the time I took a break from the bike world was when mountain bikes were first appearing on the scene. Though I built my own mountain-ish bike using an old Schwinn Continental frame (it provided the widest tire clearance of any semi-decent frames I'd run across), triple chainrings were not commonly available in my area. So I got by with just 12 gears on that bike.
Jump ahead to around the turn of the last millennium when I got involved in bicycling anew, and triple chainrings were on just about everything. So when it came time to acquire bikes again, a triple chainring was of course something I wanted to have. But in actually using triple chainrings over the course of the last decade or so, I've come to view them as almost more of a design flaw than as an advancement. I figured I might explain here my reasoning in hopes of getting feedback from those more expert than myself--just in case it may be my own thinking or practice that is somehow flawed. I ride almost exclusively on paved roads, by the way, and most of those miles are on a recumbent tandem.
So of course the appeal of the triple chainring is the low gearing it affords. Great for going up inclines, especially steep ones. But that's where the problems come in and where the triple chainring fails to live up to its promise. That's because, once I'm going up that incline and am reaching speeds slow enough to warrant the lower gears, there is already maximal tension on the chain: when the chain is under that sort of tension, the front derailleur can't derail the chain onto the smallest chainring. I would have to pause, then resume, pedaling, for the desired gear changing to work under that scenario. That would effectively mean coming to a stop. So why even have that small chainring if it can't be pressed into service when most needed?
So, in my experience to date, the only way the small chainring can ever come into play is if I remember to shift down to it prior to starting the climb. If I forget to do that or happen not to know ahead of time how steep/long the incline is, then I am simply forced to climb it in the lowest possible gear I can get on the middle chainring. Thus, my working assumption that triple chainrings are at best over-hyped, and at worst simply a flawed design solution.
Am I wrong in any way my suppositions? Do I need better front derailleurs, or do I need to work on making finer adjustments to them? Input will be appreciated.
My enagement with bicycles dates way back, prior to the appearance of 6-cog freewheels (5 was max when I first got seriously involved). I was avidly tinkering with bikes, doing a bit of amateur racing and some cross-country touring back then. About the time I took a break from the bike world was when mountain bikes were first appearing on the scene. Though I built my own mountain-ish bike using an old Schwinn Continental frame (it provided the widest tire clearance of any semi-decent frames I'd run across), triple chainrings were not commonly available in my area. So I got by with just 12 gears on that bike.
Jump ahead to around the turn of the last millennium when I got involved in bicycling anew, and triple chainrings were on just about everything. So when it came time to acquire bikes again, a triple chainring was of course something I wanted to have. But in actually using triple chainrings over the course of the last decade or so, I've come to view them as almost more of a design flaw than as an advancement. I figured I might explain here my reasoning in hopes of getting feedback from those more expert than myself--just in case it may be my own thinking or practice that is somehow flawed. I ride almost exclusively on paved roads, by the way, and most of those miles are on a recumbent tandem.
So of course the appeal of the triple chainring is the low gearing it affords. Great for going up inclines, especially steep ones. But that's where the problems come in and where the triple chainring fails to live up to its promise. That's because, once I'm going up that incline and am reaching speeds slow enough to warrant the lower gears, there is already maximal tension on the chain: when the chain is under that sort of tension, the front derailleur can't derail the chain onto the smallest chainring. I would have to pause, then resume, pedaling, for the desired gear changing to work under that scenario. That would effectively mean coming to a stop. So why even have that small chainring if it can't be pressed into service when most needed?
So, in my experience to date, the only way the small chainring can ever come into play is if I remember to shift down to it prior to starting the climb. If I forget to do that or happen not to know ahead of time how steep/long the incline is, then I am simply forced to climb it in the lowest possible gear I can get on the middle chainring. Thus, my working assumption that triple chainrings are at best over-hyped, and at worst simply a flawed design solution.
Am I wrong in any way my suppositions? Do I need better front derailleurs, or do I need to work on making finer adjustments to them? Input will be appreciated.