Grinder34
Track Monkey
I agree that more gears in the back is good. But more in the front... Well that depends on the kind of bike, kind of riding, and ability of the rider.
For me personally, having a triple chainring in the front sucks. It is less efficient and those small jumps in gearing are problematic. If I want to reduce my gearing to climb I want to move 2-3 gears max. When sprinting I also don't want to be moving through the front rings and rear gears.
If I'm riding on mainly flat roads I want a 52t front ring with an 11-28 rear (11 speed) cassette. This allows me to use all of my gears with minimal cross chaining and less energy lost to friction.
My bike is setup with a 52/44 in the front and 11-28 in the back and I have yet to encounter a hill I cannot go up. When I first started, yes that happened on 2 different very steep hills but both were on older (heavier) bikes with an 11-25 in the back.
General rule is that weight matters on hills above ~5% grade (greatly depends on the speed you can hold when climbing) but everywhere else, aero is King.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Yeah, was kinda tailoring that for his bike. But I'd say that for most people the weight of a 3x vs 2x in the front is like going to carbon fiber lug nuts. The weight technically makes a difference, but almost more of a placebo.
Now WHICH gears are in front on that 3x matter a lot, true. If you have the the same two as your 2x, just with an added third, I don't really see the downside...other than a few grams.
Most all road bikes I see now are 2x or even 1x up front. I doubt touring bikes are. I know that I struggle on some 10% (dunno, don't trust Strava!) Grade hills with my daughter in the back. I mean I CAN do it but I drop to around 50 rpm in my lowest gear. I'm sure I could go faster and want to die and show up drenched in sweat. I can't imagine a mountain pass with camping gear! But maybe I am just out of shape for that kind of riding.