Double / Triple Chainset question from Newbie

cosmaboy

Hi,

Apologies if this is a stupid question which i feel i will probably answer myself!

Obviously the difference between a Double and Triple Chainset is the amount of gears you get.

over a longer period of trip it would benefit you having a triple chainset?

alfablue

It is all about fitness and terrain. If you are not a very strong cyclist and / or you ride a lot of hills (or do loaded cycle touring) then a triple makes sense. It will give you a very low ratio for the tougher climbs. This may have a benefit even on short, steep rides, though of course the fatigue of pushing a higher geared double up hills will be cumulative as the rides get longer.

Arguments against triples are more weight (a very minor issue); that some gears are duplicated and not all ratios are usable (large front to large rear, small to small) so that a triple 9 speed does not give you 30 unique/usable gears; more fiddly to set up/adjust gears (not a problem I have found); cost - a triple setup on a new bike may cost about £30 more compared with a double equivalent, or might be the same price but with slightly downgraded components; fashion police - a few people might sneer at you needing a triple, after all the pro-riders don't use them (wouldn't bother me in the least).

A halfway house is a compact chainset, this will likely have 50 & 34 rings rather than 53 & 39, so giving lower ratios (though not as low as the 30 inner ring you get on a road triple), at the expense of a slightly lower top gear - which is unlikely to bother you unless you are a fast and strong rider or want to descend at maximum speed.

Personally, I am not ashamed of my limitations and I prefer triples.

cosmaboy

thanks Alfablue,

S basically and correct me if i'm wrong but for a beginner like myslef a triple chainset might come in handy as obviously it would give me lower ratio gears to enable me to climb hills easier, along the way of a mtb but obviously will give me the same high end gears and a double chainset?

alfablue

yes, as a beginner I reckon it's the way to go, yes, same high as a double, the low won't be quite as low as an mtb (mtb is likely to have a 32 or 34 large sprocket on the back and a 22 or 26 small front ring, a road triple is likely to have a 25, 26 or 27 large sprocket and a 30 small front ring) but will be low enough.

If you were into loaded touring then some of these bikes have mtb chainsets for even lower gears, but that might be overkill for unloaded day rides, commuting etc.

What bike are you thinking of?

avoidingmyphd

"if you have to ask, get a triple".

(unless you are reddragon's nephew).

cosmaboy

what bike am i thinking of?

well being newbie i'm not sure what to go for, been trailing the forum looking for ideas.

after a few pointers i think i'll be looking along the lines of a Specialized Allez Sport 2008 or something along those line, i prefer the look of the the Shimano Tiagra shifters rather than Sora..

or even the Claud Bulter Vicenza but i've got to have a look at the Focus bikes from Wiggle.

Idealy i'd like the Shimano Tiagra shifters but can't seem to see bikes under 600 quid with these on.

redddraggon

avoidingmyphd wrote:

"if you have to ask, get a triple".

(unless you are reddragon's nephew).

If you have to get a triple, it must be Campagnolo. There can be no excuses.

mivecboy

cosmaboy wrote:

Idealy i'd like the Shimano Tiagra shifters but can't seem to see bikes under 600 quid with these on.

I bought my Giant SCR2 (which I am loving) for £495 (got 10 percent discount) which has Tiagra shifters. Slowly increasing the miles every ride now :-)

Mettan

cosmaboy wrote:

thanks Alfablue,

S basically and correct me if i'm wrong but for a beginner like myslef a triple chainset might come in handy as obviously it would give me lower ratio gears to enable me to climb hills easier, along the way of a mtb but obviously will give me the same high end gears and a double chainset?

Yes - Triple's are particularly useful when you've got substantial climbs ahead when you've already covered significant distances - an example being an 8-12 % for 1 km after you've already got 50 or 60 miles in your legs (simplified example) - a well-trained strong rider could of course handle that situation on a double but for a lesser-trained novice a Triple will give you an easier time at that particular point.

bahzob

Mettan wrote:

Yes - Triple's are particularly useful when you've got substantial climbs ahead when you've already covered significant distances - an example being an 8-12 % for 1 km after you've already got 50 or 60 miles in your legs (simplified example) - a well-trained strong rider could of course handle that situation on a double but for a lesser-trained novice a Triple will give you an easier time at that particular point.

Just to say triples are not necessarily for beginners. IMO its more accurate to say that standard (i.e. non compact) doubles should only be used by good strong riders.

Of course it all depends on definitions/aspirations. Extending the example above I would say that while you can kid yourself you can get by on a double the real test is if you you have got a substantial climb, say 8% for 13km after 190km of riding thats already included 2 climbs over 2000m (like Wednesdays TDF stage for example). If you can climb this at more than 50rpm then you are a good strong rider. If not while not a beginner, then a double is not for you.

From there IMO a triple is a better bet for a good rider because they will get benefit from having a 53 big ring.

Beginners could use triple or compact but I would still vote triple because it offers lowest possible gears and, with less space between each change, more chance of finding the right gear appropriate for a hills gradient/length.