Whats really wrong with a triple?

bahzob
bahzob Posts: 2,195
edited July 2008 in Road beginners
A recurring question here and else where seems to be "should I go triple or compact?"

As a confirmed triple user I seem to be in the minority. Puzzled because while I can see advantages to having a triple I can only see 3 minor disadvantages:
- Front adjustment takes a bit more time/trouble
- If the going is hard on a hill its tempting to shift down to lowest and take it easy (this is only an issue if going as fast as possible is the objective).
- It weighs a bit more.

There is, of course, the embarrassment factor of being seen to need 3 rings instead of 2 that the pros can use but since I've no illusions of being a pro that doesnt bother me.

Is this it? Any other real disadvantages of a triple that I have not encountered yet?
Martin S. Newbury RC
«13

Comments

  • Doobz
    Doobz Posts: 2,800
    nope tripples are good if you struggle with big hills etc. I say people with triples have more sense then those who struggle up hills. My folks have them on their dolans and they mince up the climbs while others are busting a gut
    cartoon.jpg
  • Richie G
    Richie G Posts: 283
    Absolutely nothing wrong with using a triple. I think there's a bit of snobbery about them - i've had a few comments about mine. Personally i've never had a problem with mine and it's nice when you get into the real hills to have gears you can spin rather than grind.
  • richa
    richa Posts: 1,631
    Nothing at all.
    Rich
  • roger_merriman
    roger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    as others have said very little minus after all have been on mtb's for years. This said 30 compared to 34 is not a massive jump about a gear down
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    With a Compact I can be going at ~4mph, any slower and I'd be struggling to balance and it'd be easier to get off and walk.

    If can't climb a hill in a compact I'm not going to be able to climb it with a triple either.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • jswba
    jswba Posts: 491
    It's a tiny bit quicker to clean a compact!
  • Nowt wrong with a triple , its all about having a choice isn't it, more gears = more choice. There is minimal grief in setting up a triple properly from my experience.

    Most sports I've done which involves any equipment - people often blindly assume the top end competition gear setup is best, and then they can end up with kit that doesn't match their overall ambition or ability. In reality for most of us who aren't up for competing at any serious level, a more friendly setup ( like using a triple on a bike ) works better.
  • Bronzie
    Bronzie Posts: 4,927
    The only thing I don't like about my triple is that it is just a tiny bit wider between the pedals than a normal double or compact. I only notice it when I swap between bikes - the triple always feels a bit "John Wayne" for the first few miles.

    Other than that, what's not to like?
  • synchronicity
    synchronicity Posts: 1,415
    All my Dutch clients laugh at my bikes with triples... some of them have never even seen a triple road bike before. Then they come back to me after a week of riding Tenerife & say "Yeah, you need the triple".
  • kettrinboy
    kettrinboy Posts: 613
    ive got a Scott CR1 Pro with a triple and in nearly 4000 miles have only used the granny ring twice, both times at the end of a long 70-80 mile ride when i was knackered and faced with a 20% hill which i just wouldnt have been able to do on 39/25, at least i can still say that i havnt been beaten by a hill yet thanks to my granny ring, why struggle up steep hills on a double when a triple can make life easier
  • idaviesmoore
    idaviesmoore Posts: 557
    Triples, doubles, single speed and fixed.....Who cares as long as you're riding and you're enjoying it? :)
    'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity
  • will3
    will3 Posts: 2,173
    I have a bike fitted with a triple , but with no front shifter so the mech is fixed in place.

    Still waiting for someone to laugh at my 'triple' only to find out it's a single........

    TBH I'm supprised that the dutch think you even need a double. I sure don't here in the fens.
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    i have to admit - I have been stricken with the triple-snobbery disease.

    I have had a few road bikes with triples - took one to the alps last year where it was excellent - but came to built a new bike this year and went for a compact.

    It does look neater and the front mech is SO much easier to setup - but mainly becuase I wanted a campag centaur bike and I didn't want the (non-UT) compag triple chainsets.

    the triple gives you the best of all worlds really - a 52/11 for the top gear and a 30/27 as the lowest (that is a real crawler!) - but to be honest my 34/26 isn't that far off the lowest and the 50/12 is still a very high gear (ive never - not even on an alpine decent - felt I didn't have a high enough gear!)
  • bobpzero
    bobpzero Posts: 1,431
    nothing wrong with havin a triple. it lets me remind anyone else that im not going to rip my legs out of my hips to get up hill lol.
  • simon_e
    simon_e Posts: 1,706
    Richie G wrote:
    I think there's a bit of snobbery about them - i've had a few comments about mine.
    The kind of people who look down on another rider for a personal choice such as this really isn't worth wasting your time on. If you chose a triple and are happy then who gives a monkey's what some to$$er thinks?

    IMO whether double, compact or triple, it's just a matter of choice, regardless of the gradients you ride or the strength of your legs. Everyone can choose and be happy. I can only guess this kind of snobbery is due to some childhood trauma that results in an acute lack of self-confidence.
    Aspire not to have more, but to be more.
  • bryan71
    bryan71 Posts: 89
    I have just collected my new bike Paul hewitt make up for me.Being new to road biking he recommended a triple as you may not need to use it.But it's always there.
  • Naz
    Naz Posts: 353
    Absolutely nothing wrong with triples. I've done sub 58 minutes for 25 mile TTs and happily use a triple on my road bike. In practice I ride 53/42 most of the time and then on 20%+ hills I might stick it in the granny ring and spin to save the knees, makes perfect sense to me. And all this nonsense about set-up, I've not adjusted my front mech in about 3 years so how big a problem is this?!
  • nasahapley
    nasahapley Posts: 717
    Naz wrote:
    Absolutely nothing wrong with triples. I've done sub 58 minutes for 25 mile TTs and happily use a triple on my road bike. In practice I ride 53/42 most of the time and then on 20%+ hills I might stick it in the granny ring and spin to save the knees, makes perfect sense to me. And all this nonsense about set-up, I've not adjusted my front mech in about 3 years so how big a problem is this?![/quote]

    I always wonder the same thing when the old 'triples are hard to adjust' chestnut comes up - I haven't touched mine since I got my bike a year ago and it still works perfectly!
  • pictit
    pictit Posts: 603
    'Real' men don't need triples,thats whats wrong with them.You should get up anything using a 39-25.Doesn't matter what type of cycling,where you cycle,how old or your level of fitness.'Real' men don't need triples.End of story.
    woof woof :wink:
  • giant_man
    giant_man Posts: 6,878
    Simon E wrote:
    Richie G wrote:
    I think there's a bit of snobbery about them - i've had a few comments about mine.
    The kind of people who look down on another rider for a personal choice such as this really isn't worth wasting your time on. If you chose a triple and are happy then who gives a monkey's what some to$$er thinks?

    IMO whether double, compact or triple, it's just a matter of choice, regardless of the gradients you ride or the strength of your legs. Everyone can choose and be happy. I can only guess this kind of snobbery is due to some childhood trauma that results in an acute lack of self-confidence.

    Great answer to which i totally agree with. If you want a triple then why not have one? It's nothing to do with anyone else, if it gets you up hills then job done. Then you can laugh at the idiots struggling up the same hills.
  • giant_man
    giant_man Posts: 6,878
    pictit wrote:
    'Real' men don't need triples,thats whats wrong with them.You should get up anything using a 39-25.Doesn't matter what type of cycling,where you cycle,how old or your level of fitness.'Real' men don't need triples.End of story.
    woof woof :wink:

    Idiot!
  • Rich Hcp
    Rich Hcp Posts: 1,355
    I love my triple.

    I like having the options to keep pedling

    It's about the cycling, not the bike
    Richard

    Giving it Large
  • John C.
    John C. Posts: 2,113
    After 100 miles triples are ridden up hills doubles are pushed :lol:
    http://www.ripon-loiterers.org.uk/

    Fail to prepare, prepare to fail
    Hills are just a matter of pace
  • a_n_t
    a_n_t Posts: 2,011
    John C. wrote:
    After 100 miles triples are ridden up hills doubles are pushed :lol:


    depends whats on the back of your double :wink:


    34:29 is plenty!
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • webbhost
    webbhost Posts: 470
    how does having a triple make it easier to get up a hill exactly? You still have the small gear and large gear - except you have one in between too..... surely all this means is that you lose slightly less power when you shift down a gear (i.e. if you switch from top to bottom - 2 gear you lose alot of power unless you pedal very very fast, where a triple is a more gradual decrease in speed cause you click into middle, then click into bottom?)..... I dont know, but I dont get the logic of a triple being "easier" to get up a hill. Like reddragon said, if you cant get up the hill in the bottom of a double you cant get up the hill anyway even if you have a triple..
  • roger_merriman
    roger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    well with road triple you gain a little lower and a little higher compared to a compact, but one could fit (i would guess?) mtb type's which really would make short work of all but the silliest of hills, this said unless you think your likely to find your self grinding up 30% or so. it's likely to be massive over kill.
  • on the road
    on the road Posts: 5,631
    pictit wrote:
    'Real' men don't need triples,thats whats wrong with them.You should get up anything using a 39-25.Doesn't matter what type of cycling,where you cycle,how old or your level of fitness.'Real' men don't need triples.End of story.
    woof woof :wink:

    Idiot!
    Some people can't take a joke :lol:
  • Campy King
    Campy King Posts: 201
    pictit wrote:
    'Real' men don't need triples,thats whats wrong with them.You should get up anything using a 39-25.Doesn't matter what type of cycling,where you cycle,how old or your level of fitness.'Real' men don't need triples.End of story.
    woof woof :wink:

    Idiot!

    I take it you have a triple? :wink:
  • andrew_s
    andrew_s Posts: 2,511
    With a Compact I can be going at ~4mph, any slower and I'd be struggling to balance and it'd be easier to get off and walk.
    You're kidding yourself. If it's steep enough to have you going 4mph on the bike, you aren't going to be able to push a bike at more than 2mph, or more like 1mph if you are wearing Look cleats.

    Also, if you've got a triple and want lower gears, you can swap the 30 for a 24. With a compact if you want lower gears you have to pay up for switching to triple.
  • giant_man
    giant_man Posts: 6,878
    Campy King wrote:
    pictit wrote:
    'Real' men don't need triples,thats whats wrong with them.You should get up anything using a 39-25.Doesn't matter what type of cycling,where you cycle,how old or your level of fitness.'Real' men don't need triples.End of story.
    woof woof :wink:

    Idiot!

    I take it you have a triple? :wink:
    Me Sir? Triple sir? No sir! I just think he's an idiot for saying that.