Whats really wrong with a triple?

redddraggon

pictit wrote:

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:

I told my nephew to get a triple and it was a failure - I won't be telling anyone else to get a triple again.

pdstsp

Bloody hell redraggon you are one angry young man aren't you - its gears we are talking about, not life and death.

I've just got back from the alps and ridden 150 miles in a couple of days on my triple equiped bike while my friend used his compact. His words at the end of the trip were - I wish I'd brought my other bike with the triple - I would have enjoyed it all that much more.
Surely this is the whole point - it is, after all, a hobby.

bendertherobot

pdstsp wrote:

Bloody hell redraggon you are one angry young man aren't you - its gears we are talking about, not life and death.

I've just got back from the alps and ridden 150 miles in a couple of days on my triple equiped bike while my friend used his compact. His words at the end of the trip were - I wish I'd brought my other bike with the triple - I would have enjoyed it all that much more.
Surely this is the whole point - it is, after all, a hobby.

I've gone from an alu equipped compact double to a full carbon triple.

Absolutely loving the ability to stick it on the granny and look around me. If anything it's changed how I ride. And if I want "race" then I'll go hardcore and pretend the granny's not there at all.

That's the thing with a triple. There if you want it. Not needed if you don't.

jedster

And if I want "race" then I'll go hardcore and pretend the granny's not there at all.

That's the thing with a triple. There if you want it. Not needed if you don't.

That's exactly how I see it. Normally I ride as if i've only got two rings 52/42. 52 on flats and downhill, 42 on uphill, rolling and headwinds. But when I'm at the end of a longer ride or hauling up a long steep climb then its nice to have the 30 ring.

I may well get a compact on my next bike but I have reservations, I used to run 50/39/30 and I found the 39 just that bit low for gently rolling hills and light headwinds. I worry that a 34 ring will feel too low a lot of the time and I'll end up in the 50 nearly all the time which won't actually be as nice a range as I get from my current 42.

The stock answer to the question, should I get a triple is "if you need to ask, get a triple". The reason is that there is precious little downside beyond image. On the otherhand, running out of gears is a pain...

J

J

bendertherobot

jedster wrote:

And if I want "race" then I'll go hardcore and pretend the granny's not there at all.

That's the thing with a triple. There if you want it. Not needed if you don't.

That's exactly how I see it. Normally I ride as if i've only got two rings 52/42. 52 on flats and downhill, 42 on uphill, rolling and headwinds. But when I'm at the end of a longer ride or hauling up a long steep climb then its nice to have the 30 ring.

I may well get a compact on my next bike but I have reservations, I used to run 50/39/30 and I found the 39 just that bit low for gently rolling hills and light headwinds. I worry that a 34 ring will feel too low a lot of the time and I'll end up in the 50 nearly all the time which won't actually be as nice a range as I get from my current 42.

The stock answer to the question, should I get a triple is "if you need to ask, get a triple". The reason is that there is precious little downside beyond image. On the otherhand, running out of gears is a pain...

J

J

Funnily enough that was me. I spent all the time on the 50. Climbing, head down, chugging away. Standing on the harder ascents. Only time I used the 34 was on the Dragon Ride and the occasional hard hill.

Yet now I use the 42 far more often and just love hills even more.

roger_merriman

chriskempton wrote:

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.

not if your after a close ratio gears, then the compact's jump will show as you change chainrings.

if your after close ratio's then a triple is a wise choice.

geoff_ss

I've been watching this 'debate' with some amusement and,so far, resisted the temptation to comment.

Triples are fine. With modern gears they work perfectly and can be set up to provide either a close or wide range of gears. That extra ring weighs virtually nothing and well worth the few grams at the end of a long hard ride when we have to climb back home. OK, testosterone laden young men, more worried about image than practicality disdain them but I wonder what they're afraid of? In any case it's down to personal choice and I wouldn't be without mine.

Our first tandem had 4 gears. It was a Sun Wasp with Cyclo gears and weighed more than I can imagine. Bottom gear was 52" but we were young (well, under 40 at least) and fit as butcher's cats so we managed to wrestle it up the mountain we need to climb after every ride to get safely home The secondhand Jack Taylor that replaced it had (like all modern tandems) a triple chainset which was a bit of a bugger to get onto the 30 ring we rarely needed, but when we did it was like being provided with wings and we were never beaten on a hill. Modern triple are child's play by comparison.

We lose 20% of muscle at 70. I'm not quite that (getting very close ) and I've lost rather more muscle due to nerve damage, so my 44/32/22 triple coupled to a 13/25 9 speed block suits me perfectly. 44x13 is a higher gear than I had on my audax bike when I was fit (good enough for 10hr 200km and 20hr 400km) and after 40 kph I free wheel.

Anyone who can't set up a modern triple to work faultlessly should give up cycle mechanics and hand the job over to a professional.

Geoff

pdstsp

Thats the next thread then Geoff, "Whats really wrong with having another person pedalling on the back?" And there'll be the same old responses - "it looks wrong" "if you can't get up a hill with only one pair of legs you should just get yourself fitter" etc etc etc.

whyamihere

I only ever used a double on my MTB. When it was steep enough to require a lower gear than 32:32, it really was quicker to get off and run. I now use a standard double on the roadie as a result. The only problem I've found when riding with a friend who has a triple is that on steep hills, I have to take off and wait at the top. He could twiddle away on 30:25, I only had 42:25 at the time.

Interestingly, guess who got off and walked on the steeper hills. Handy hint: It wasn't me.

nasahapley

whyamihere wrote:

The only problem I've found when riding with a friend who has a triple is that on steep hills, I have to take off and wait at the top. He could twiddle away on 30:25, I only had 42:25 at the time.

Interestingly, guess who got off and walked on the steeper hills. Handy hint: It wasn't me.

And this tells us what exactly? Unless you're suggesting that your mate would be faster on a double even though he ran out of gears on a triple, all it shows is that you're better at getting up hills than him. Well done, but this doesn't have any bearing on whether a triple is going to be a better choice for any given person. It's a bit of a bugbear of mine that when beginners ask for advice, a lot of people seem to think they've found some universal truth through their own experiences and just extrapolate them - 'I'm quicker on a double than my mate on a triple, therefore doubles are quicker for everyone', 'I had trouble setting up a triple, therefore no triple will ever work properly' etc etc. Gets right on my wick.

Anyway, I feel better now for that mini-rant. And I've realised that cycling isn't about fun, it's about putting yourself through as much discomfort as possible and looking macho. From now on I'll be using a single 53 tooth chainring (no poncy double for me!), sandpaper for a chamois and putting tacks in my shoes; should I have to resort to the 25 sprocket I'll give myself a damn good thrashing on my return home

bahzob

Thanks for all the above. From contributions to date I think I can conclude

- There are no actual real reasons why a triple is any less good than a double or compact for all but top level riders.

- Some people have an innate dislike of triples, which is fine. It takes all sorts.

I would recommend if you do not fall into last category and have not yet tried using a triple but have found some hills hard to at least give a triple a try.

redddraggon

bahzob wrote:

I would recommend if you do not fall into last category and have not yet tried using a triple but have found some hills hard to at least give a triple a try.

Hills are meant to be hard, they never get easier, you just get faster.

bendertherobot

redddraggon wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I would recommend if you do not fall into last category and have not yet tried using a triple but have found some hills hard to at least give a triple a try.

Hills are meant to be hard, they never get easier, you just get faster.

I look forward to you confirming that you have moved full time to a fixie.

passout

Triples are fine if you ride proper hills i.e. Dales, Lakes, Scottish passes and the like. Steep & long climbs can justify it. Tourers and MTB'ers often need triples too. Most roadies in the UK would cope with a double or compact but it depends largely on what you ride. Don't worry about what others think.

Tom Butcher

Can someone point me to the posts where people look on triples with disdain, take the mickey out of triple users for being weak and generally engage in macho ribbing of those who choose to equip their bike with a third chainring?

Nobody cares if you ride a triple or not - if you need one then ride one - if you don't need one then don't - but please stop pretending there is some clique of road cyclists who are kidding themselves that they can get round on "pro gears" when in fact they would be better off sticking it in the granny ring and admiring the view.

It's like runners who wear long tights or tracksuit bottoms in summer because they believe mistakenly that the rest of the world is going to look at their pale flabby legs and laugh - in truth few would notice and fewer would care. Ride a triple if you wish - you don't have to justify it - nobody is laughing at you.

redddraggon

bendertherobot wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I would recommend if you do not fall into last category and have not yet tried using a triple but have found some hills hard to at least give a triple a try.

Hills are meant to be hard, they never get easier, you just get faster.

I look forward to you confirming that you have moved full time to a fixie.

Screw that, I'm a descender, not a climber.

bahzob

Tom Butcher wrote:

Can someone point me to the posts where people look on triples with disdain, take the mickey out of triple users for being weak and generally engage in macho ribbing of those who choose to equip their bike with a third chainring?

Nobody cares if you ride a triple or not - if you need one then ride one - if you don't need one then don't - but please stop pretending there is some clique of road cyclists who are kidding themselves that they can get round on "pro gears" when in fact they would be better off sticking it in the granny ring and admiring the view.

It's like runners who wear long tights or tracksuit bottoms in summer because they believe mistakenly that the rest of the world is going to look at their pale flabby legs and laugh - in truth few would notice and fewer would care. Ride a triple if you wish - you don't have to justify it - nobody is laughing at you.

Most people seem to choose compacts over triples if they need more than a 39x27 and I think thats the balance of advice usually offered to posters.

Given there dont seem to be any real disadvantages of triple compared to a compact (while a triple offers some advantages like more gears/smoother transitions) this seems slightly strange and I guess at least part of the reason for this is the embarrassment of being seen to have "flabby legs" as you say.

So I agree, as you say, "ride a triple if you wish, nobody is laughing at you."

bigjim

None of these comments mention the fact that people on a touring bike may be fully loaded. Panniers front & back, barbag plus tent & sleeping bag. This is what I carried when I attempted the C2C last week. I used a triple and I still had to get off and push a few times. My mate on a MTB could spin up a few of the hills where I was pushing and he is no fitter than me. Locally where we have quite a few steep climbs I never get off the unloaded bike, which is usually an 80s raleigh with original 6 speed campag double. By the way I have always had trouble setting up front mech on my triple. It has been to the LBS twice and they still cocked it up. If I could manage with a double I would.
Jim

redddraggon

bigjim wrote:

None of these comments mention the fact that people on a touring bike may be fully loaded.

Yeh that's because most of us weren't talking about touring bikes, I'd have a triple on a touring/audax bike.

stagger

recce'd some of the devil ride at the weekend. Was glad of a triple... works for me!

bigjim

Yeh that's because most of us weren't talking about touring bikes, I'd have a triple on a touring/audax bike.

Ooher. Touchy little thing are we not? Ever heard of good manners? Course not. My comment was looking at at different approach to the question that may of being some use to somebody. But obviousley some nasty people are too full of agression to see that.

Jim.

bahzob

bigjim wrote:

... By the way I have always had trouble setting up front mech on my triple. It has been to the LBS twice and they still cocked it up. If I could manage with a double I would.
Jim

Had problems with this in past myself. Parktools website has a pretty good guide
http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=75

I use Ultegra and the instructions that come with this (+ a plastic gizmo that helps set initial alignment/height) make it pretty straight forward to set up.

(that said still easy to make mistake, main ones I make are:
- forgetting to set barrel adjusters (approx mid way) before fixing cable and/or forgetting to set cable tension correctly after fixing cable
- not realising when I first got bike it that the mech has a "trimming function" on the middle and outer chain rings that let you adjust the shifter to avoid chain rub.

Re your first point. I originally got a triple because I was using bike for (light but long) touring.

Anonymous

There is this hill in the dales called fleet moss or something, I was going up that on my 25-34 and was going like 4-5mph, was very hard I wish I had a tripple.

roger_merriman

willhub wrote:

There is this hill in the dales called fleet moss or something, I was going up that on my 25-34 and was going like 4-5mph, was very hard I wish I had a tripple.

would one gear down of made that much differance? because between 30t and 34t thats about it,

triple or rather normal road one's are close in ratio so don't give much more range than a compact. thats not to say that one couldn't just that most don't which makes the to get up said hill you'll want a triple not really hold any water.

given a choice i'd go for a triple but there is really very little in it. it really is a non issue which is probably why it's reached 6 pages and counting as it has more to folks folks ideas about image than any thing else

Anonymous

roger merriman wrote:

willhub wrote:

There is this hill in the dales called fleet moss or something, I was going up that on my 25-34 and was going like 4-5mph, was very hard I wish I had a tripple.

would one gear down of made that much differance? because between 30t and 34t thats about it,

triple or rather normal road one's are close in ratio so don't give much more range than a compact. thats not to say that one couldn't just that most don't which makes the to get up said hill you'll want a triple not really hold any water.

given a choice i'd go for a triple but there is really very little in it. it really is a non issue which is probably why it's reached 6 pages and counting as it has more to folks folks ideas about image than any thing else

Between 25 and the next one down I see a difference, I can only get up hills on 25 unless I have built up speed before I get to the hill.

What I do see is that alot of people dont like to use the smallest ring even though they have it, they only use the middle or biggest ring.

roger_merriman

the difference should be fairly small though, if your only getting up hills on the lowest then you may well be overgeared and few gears down would be easier and possibly faster. and your knees may well thank you.

as to to people not using the lowest chainring. well on bikes that have 3 chainrings one tends to hang around in the 2nd unless one is going very much up or down. and with a close ratio road gears i can see people doing more of that.

bigjim

Probably less hassle to just get off and walk for a while on the steepest hills. That will give your knees a better break than anything else and you get to see more and have a good stretch. If you cycle regularly you will find yourself walking less as your muscles improve. I'm sure years ago when people mananged to tour extensively on a 5 speed they never bothered about having to push up a big hill. I think is is only recently with our pathetic image based society that we insist on staying on board no matter what.

Jim

roger_merriman

with low enought gears ie 22t or so it's quite possible to sit down and spin up all but the very worse, bikes had brakes that hardly worked in the wet, rember steel rims? so in all probility they didn't try riding bikes up 20+ % hills

or they pushed them up them. personally i like steep hills good thing as i grew up in gorge!