Whats really wrong with a triple?

redddraggon

andrew_s wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

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.

Don't be stupid, of course I'm not kidding myself, you don't know me and you definitely don't what I can or can't manage. If I can't manage with a pathetically small gear of 34-25 I'll fit my 13-29 cassette giving me an even more pathetic 34-29. I can't see the point of triple when I can use a 13-29 cassette, I started off road biking with 50-36 12-23 and I struggled when I started but I never got off and walked, I made the effort and carried on going.

If I wanted a triple I would have built a bike with a triple, but as it happens after having compacts on most of my bikes, I'll probably only be getting standard doubles from now on.

All I need is a 39t chainring and a decent cassette and I'd rarely need to shift at the front. Triples are for unfit/lazy/tourers(audaxers)/stupid terrain/MTBers, take your pick but none of those apply to me in N. Wales.

st68

i use a 53/39 & i wouldnt use anything else i just use the appropriate cassette for the terrain i ride BUT i dont look down my nose at someone using a triple its THERE choice not mine i rode the chiltern 100 route today on a 11/25 cassette today and there are a few 20%+ hills on that in hindsight a 13/29 would have been better but i got round it but my legs are tired :shock:

Bugly

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

If you rode bikes in the 80s and earlier the clusters were 7 speed (or six) and the chain rings 53 or 52 and 42. your low gear was 42/21 unless you were doing a mountain race in which case you may get down to 42/23 anything else and you werent a man

bendertherobot

redddraggon wrote:

All I need is a 39t chainring and a decent cassette and I'd rarely need to shift at the front. Triples are for unfit/lazy/tourers(audaxers)/stupid terrain/MTBers, take your pick but none of those apply to me in N. Wales.

So, triples are for "sweeping generalisation" but you don't fit into that category?

Wow you're hardcore. I wish I was you. 8)

Rebel Ian

Triples are for unfit/lazy/tourers(audaxers)/stupid terrain/MTBers, take your pick but none of those apply to me in N. Wales.

And there was me thinking that cycling was supposed to be fun!

I have a triple (mainly because the bike I bought was in stock with a triple) and used the smallest ring this morning up a hill which lots of people on here would laugh at. To be honest though, I got back into cycling recently to enjoy it, not to embark on some macho ego trip and if that means using the smallest ring occasionally then so be it.

avoidingmyphd

hahahaha the best argument people have against triples is that they can "change their cassette" to an appropriate one.

guys, do you this half way up the hill?
or do you walk round the route ahead of time eyeing up the gradients?
or if you choose wrong and start to struggle half way round, do you go home and swap cassette?

I think we should go back to the OP's question: what is SO wrong with a triple that it's better to have to take your back wheel apart rather than have one?

roger_merriman

not really for given cassette most triple's are only at best one gear lower and higher compared to a normal compact vs normal road triple,

while it's certinaly true that, one can get triple's with rings that get down to MTB gearing, most triple's are not, and will offer only a little greater range of gearing as the three ratios are closer than the compacts two ratios.

in other words in terms of getting up a steep hill, a triple for a given cassette would offer a slightly lower gear, but unlikely to make or break one getting up said hill, as the differance is just too small.

the real advantage a triple would have is being able to keep close ratio's while still getting a decent range of gears, ie no big jump in gearing.

the will get you up a hill is not really there, almost all triple's don't go below 30t which isn't much lower than 34t even with a close ratio cassette it's one gear at most.

redddraggon

Bugly 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

If you rode bikes in the 80s and earlier the clusters were 7 speed (or six) and the chain rings 53 or 52 and 42. your low gear was 42/21 unless you were doing a mountain race in which case you may get down to 42/23 anything else and you werent a man

And before then they climbed Cols with Fixies.

redddraggon

avoidingmyphd wrote:

hahahaha the best argument people have against triples is that they can "change their cassette" to an appropriate one.

guys, do you this half way up the hill?
or do you walk round the route ahead of time eyeing up the gradients?
or if you choose wrong and start to struggle half way round, do you go home and swap cassette?

I think we should go back to the OP's question: what is SO wrong with a triple that it's better to have to take your back wheel apart rather than have one?

I'd change my cassette before going somewhere like the Alps, having done everything around here so far on a 42-25, my 34-25 should be fine thanks.

bendertherobot

redddraggon wrote:

I'd change my cassette before going somewhere like the Alps, having done everything around here so far on a 42-25, my 34-25 should be fine thanks.

BattoowooGreekgreek

peejay78

i bought a condor about three years ago, it came with a 12-25, 39-53. i didn't know any better, do rode it all over kent, up ditchling, toys, etc. no problem.

in april i went to ventoux. i didn't have time to change the cassette, so left it on. a lot of doom-mongerers were predicting my demise, but in reality it was fine.

i guess if you don't know any better it's not a problem. i also have a 1979 colnago, lowest/easiest ratio is 21:42. i will not be riding this bike up ventoux.

bahzob

Just a reminder to redragon and others saying they get on fine with compacts 39x23, fixed or whatever.

OP subject was what is "wrong" with a triple. Not saying everyone has to have one. Sure some people manage perfectly well without and you may be one of those.

scapaslow

The only "problem" with a triple is the perceived embarrassment factor. Some people will never grow up enough to allow themselves to use one.

I'm a compact user but will convert in the future. I miss the 39 ring and spend most of my time in the bigger cogs on the 50 ring and dislike the huge jump when you change front rings. It is possible to change the cassette on any setup to get lower gears as many of the compact advocates have suggested for compacts - so i can't see how that is a plus for compacts . But with such a lot of gears available on a standard triple i can't see much need for changing cassette.

A previous posters have said - enjoy your cycling and use the equipment most appropriate to your needs and fitness levels. Anyone who laughs at a triple is frankly an .................. (add your own expletive).

On a hilly 100miler i'd rather be the one with a triple.

BattoowooGreekgreek

scapaslow wrote:

The only "problem" with a triple is the perceived embarrassment factor. Some people will never grow up enough to allow themselves to use one.

I'm a compact user but will convert in the future. I miss the 39 ring and spend most of my time in the bigger cogs on the 50 ring and dislike the huge jump when you change front rings. It is possible to change the cassette on any setup to get lower gears as many of the compact advocates have suggested for compacts - so i can't see how that is a plus for compacts . But with such a lot of gears available on a standard triple i can't see much need for changing cassette.

A previous posters have said - enjoy your cycling and use the equipment most appropriate to your needs and fitness levels. Anyone who laughs at a triple is frankly an .................. (add your own expletive).

On a hilly 100miler i'd rather be the one with a triple.

Spot on

chriskempton

I think what's wrong with triples is that for many riders they're unneccessary, but for all bikes, they are ugly and complicated. Best left for mountain bikes in my opinion. If people want them on their road bikes that's their choice of course. :roll: I just feel you can get a perfectly good spread of gears with a compact and the right cassette - triples mean loads of overlapping gears and wasted engineering.

pictit

bendertherobot wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

I'd change my cassette before going somewhere like the Alps, having done everything around here so far on a 42-25, my 34-25 should be fine thanks.

That just about sums it up

bendertherobot

chriskempton wrote:

I think what's wrong with triples is that for many riders they're unneccessary, but for all bikes, they are ugly and complicated. Best left for mountain bikes in my opinion. If people want them on their road bikes that's their choice of course. :roll: I just feel you can get a perfectly good spread of gears with a compact and the right cassette - triples mean loads of overlapping gears and wasted engineering.

Yet the massively stressed, bumped around and abused MTB's live with this over complication?

Cycling is meant to be good for a person. If a cyclist wants to spend 2 hours on a bike with a small extra piece of metal then he's as much my cycling friend as the bloke on the fixie with garlic.

roger_merriman

chriskempton wrote:

I think what's wrong with triples is that for many riders they're unneccessary, but for all bikes, they are ugly and complicated. Best left for mountain bikes in my opinion. If people want them on their road bikes that's their choice of course. :roll: I just feel you can get a perfectly good spread of gears with a compact and the right cassette - triples mean loads of overlapping gears and wasted engineering.

it's a compromise with derailers one will not get low to high gearing that is close ratio with out overlapping fairly massively. lets see if hub gears can get light and fast and not cost the earth.

will3

Overlapping is good. Othewise everytime you shift at the front you have to shift from one end to the other of the cassette.
Not what you want when you're climbing.

chriskempton

roger merriman wrote:

chriskempton wrote:

I think what's wrong with triples is that for many riders they're unneccessary, but for all bikes, they are ugly and complicated. Best left for mountain bikes in my opinion. If people want them on their road bikes that's their choice of course. :roll: I just feel you can get a perfectly good spread of gears with a compact and the right cassette - triples mean loads of overlapping gears and wasted engineering.

it's a compromise with derailers one will not get low to high gearing that is close ratio with out overlapping fairly massively. lets see if hub gears can get light and fast and not cost the earth.

The way you minimise overlapping is by having chainrings that are proportionately wider spread i.e. a compact. The proportionately closer chainrings of a triple are inferior in this respect.

chriskempton

will3 wrote:

Overlapping is good. Othewise everytime you shift at the front you have to shift from one end to the other of the cassette.
Not what you want when you're climbing.

Like most people I change chainring before I start climbing, then stick in the (small) ring til I'm at the top. You're of course more likely to need to change chainring in a triple setup as you've more chainrings to use to get your spread of climbing gears (the middle and granny ring). As you say, not what you want.

jedster

I'm not saying that a triple is better than a compact but if you compare

52/50/30 and 11:23 with
50/34 and 12:25


The triple gives you:
slightly bigger range
closer ratios
much reduced double shifting when you change between rings

That seems a reasonable trade off for the few extra grams. I certainly don't think you can argue that its a foolish choice. I don't buy the reliability argument - they work fine IME (road bikes and MTBs).

Most people don't need a triple but its a perfectly sensible option. the issues really are about fashion.

J

chriskempton

bendertherobot wrote:

chriskempton wrote:

I think what's wrong with triples is that for many riders they're unneccessary, but for all bikes, they are ugly and complicated. Best left for mountain bikes in my opinion. If people want them on their road bikes that's their choice of course. :roll: I just feel you can get a perfectly good spread of gears with a compact and the right cassette - triples mean loads of overlapping gears and wasted engineering.

Yet the massively stressed, bumped around and abused MTB's live with this over complication?

Cycling is meant to be good for a person. If a cyclist wants to spend 2 hours on a bike with a small extra piece of metal then he's as much my cycling friend as the bloke on the fixie with garlic.

Triples on mountain bikes make sense to me. Granny on the steeps, the middle on mixed ground, big ring on drops and roads. Road bike : big ring on the flat, the small ring on the climbs or in winter/winds. What's a third ring for?

chriskempton

Triple chain rings attract enemy radar, reduce house prices, and want to give our sovereignty to Brussels.

It's clearly a touchy subject :roll:

They're just wrong on a road bike

will3

If they would just reduce house prices, I'd buy a lorry load............

will3

chriskempton wrote:

will3 wrote:

Overlapping is good. Othewise everytime you shift at the front you have to shift from one end to the other of the cassette.
Not what you want when you're climbing.

Like most people I change chainring before I start climbing, then stick in the (small) ring til I'm at the top. You're of course more likely to need to change chainring in a triple setup as you've more chainrings to use to get your spread of climbing gears (the middle and granny ring). As you say, not what you want.

Presumably you never ever encounter hills that are just on the cusp of the range for that particular chainring then?
My experience with compacts is that unless you accept a good deal of cross-chaining, there is a really annoying range that is just on the changeover between rings.
Having more chainrings does not make it any more likely that you'll need to change chainring. It just gives you more choice of selecting the appropriate chainring for the hill you're about to climb and means that if you get it wrong you don't have to cycle through 2 or three rear cogs to get a sensible shift.

shockedsoshocked

Using gears that are appropriate for your level of fitness and where you ride is surely the right answer?

bendertherobot

chriskempton wrote:

Triples on mountain bikes make sense to me. Granny on the steeps, the middle on mixed ground, big ring on drops and roads. Road bike : big ring on the flat, the small ring on the climbs or in winter/winds. What's a third ring for?

That's where you've gone wrong. There's no third ring. There are just gears. More of them, though clearly with overlap.

Most of the naysayers appear to have one clear message. A triple is not "neccesary" as you're not "doing it right."

I'm surprised that some triple owners can pluck up the courage to cycle to be honest

pictit

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Using gears that are appropriate for your level of fitness and where you ride is surely the right answer?

One would think that was a 'no brainer' but not to some on here.To the extent of them 'advising' 'newbies' that a standard double, or compact at the very most,should get anybody up anything in the UK.You tell me :roll: