road gears, why only two chainrings

Dunkindiver

triples are for old men and puffs

One out of two is correct, Duckie!

that's fine, but it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't have pi55ed it on a double

They did, I saw them as we overtaking others that were walking up the hill!

seward4or5

kieranb wrote:

Put it another way - why do MTBs have a triple (or such a wide gear range) - to get up those steep hilly sections where you might be on gravel, mud, grass etc and to bomb it down the other side. Of course you do have the MTB SS fans! Mostly on a road bike you can get a wide enough gear range using a double and 10 speed cassette for most cases you will encounter on the road.

Exactly! The OP is comparing road bikes to mountain. On a road bike it is easier to get up any given gradient given paved road, light bike weight and skinny tyres. A mountain bike is generally heavier, with knobbly tyres and on a rough or uneven surface, therefore more gears can be required to get up the same gradient.

John Stevenson

surreyxc wrote:

Why are road bikes set up this way, can see no real disadvantage of squeezing a granny ring in there. Is there an advantage on having 2 rings or is it just tradition.

It's just tradition, with, as plenty of the comments here show, a healthy dose of prejudice and machismo.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a French cycling journalist who completely failed to understand the British prejudice against triples on road bikes. He says the French attitude is that if you want a triple, you fit one, and go enjoy riding your bike.

rake

Dunkindiver wrote:

triples are for old men and puffs

One out of two is correct, Duckie!

that's fine, but it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't have pi55ed it on a double

They did, I saw them as we overtaking others that were walking up the hill!

the ones you didnt see were long gone up the road on the big chainring

shmo

Had a triple on my first road bike and it came in useful sometimes on super steep hills along with some comedy moments involving shifting into the small ring and immediately doing an unexpected wheelie. Always was a nightmare getting it shifting properly for a full range of gears. I just about got it set up so I could get the biggest and smallest gears without rubbing but as a result I'd only get a small range on each chainring.

Much prefer the simplicity of a double these days, wouldn't go back.

Barteos

sherer wrote:

all riders are different so I would say ignore the posts from people saying a double is fine.

Road bikes are usually sold in a double at the front as that is what the pros use and they try to emulate that.

Keep riding for a few months and see if the double is right for you or not as we are all different. I ride a double for training but when I do events I use a triple and am glad as I know over the distance a double isn't fine for me and I can't finish without walking, showing that we are all different in muscle mass.

You do need to find out if you have a standard double which has 39 teeth on the smaller ring, or what they call a compact which is 34 teeth on the smaller ring. If you have a standard setup you may find changing to a compact is fine.

If you have a compact you may need to go down the triple route or you may find after a bit more training you may get used to the double. You need to work out what is best for you rather than listen to someone who says they went over the Alps on a 53 - 25 so you will be fine

1+

Optimal gear ratio depends on the fitness level, WEIGHT, preferred cadence and type of riding, not on what everyone else uses.
But hey, we are talking about the world of road cycling here, where there's not much room for open minded thinking

Mike67

Just to illustrate the double / triple debate.

There was a group of 8 or 9 of us riding along at the beginning of the sportive I did yesterday.

All had various grades of bike/chainring combinations...me on a triple.

We rode as a group for at least 10 miles on the flatter bits keeping up a good speed in the mid 20's.
I had no issues keeping up with my triple and taking spells at the front. As you'd expect, it didn't come into the equation, big rings all the way.

First majorly steep hill we came to the pack split up. Most guys were honking it up on their doubles, me on my inner ring keeping a high cadence.
Two guys ahead were quicker up than me, on doubles, I was third up having passed most of the group also honking it up on doubles.

So, for a group of fairly equal ability on the flat, some were better climbing on doubles, some were worse climbing on doubles than I was on a triple.

Just illustrates really, that one is no worse than the other and doesn't make you a better or worse climber.

As has been mentioned above it's all down to personal preferences, ideal cadence for the rider, terrain, fitness, distance etc.

No doubt the debate will never end though

softlad

John Stevenson wrote:

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a French cycling journalist who completely failed to understand the British prejudice against triples on road bikes. He says the French attitude is that if you want a triple, you fit one, and go enjoy riding your bike.

nobody has mentioned 'prejudice' - except you John.....

MattC59

I've got a triple on my Trek 1.9, used the granny ring for the first time since I've had the bike, on Saturday.

It may not get much use, but I was determined to get up the 20% climb without stopping, so it was a god send.

If you want a granny triple, get one and enjoy your bike.

Jaydoubleyou

I like having a triple, even though I never use the little un. It is my security blanket.
Live and let live I say, and stop picking on us vunerable triple cripples!
Take no notice of me though, as I am am just a small cog in a big wheel...............

thel33ter

I prefer a nice full size 53 34 double, looks the best and works perfectly for me with a 11-26 casette, I can climb pretty much anything I point my bike towards, not neccasarily quickly though

John Stevenson

softlad wrote:

John Stevenson wrote:

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a French cycling journalist who completely failed to understand the British prejudice against triples on road bikes. He says the French attitude is that if you want a triple, you fit one, and go enjoy riding your bike.

nobody has mentioned 'prejudice' - except you John.....

You're denying it exists? Next you'll tell me some of your best friends ride triples...

sherer

thel33ter wrote:

I prefer a nice full size 53 34 double, looks the best and works perfectly for me with a 11-26 casette, I can climb pretty much anything I point my bike towards, not neccasarily quickly though

I wanted a setup like that the other year when I put a compact on my training bike. My LBS told me you can't do that and I had to have a 50-43 instead

softlad

John Stevenson wrote:

You're denying it exists? Next you'll tell me some of your best friends ride triples...

I don't understand why you think the French would have a monopoly on common sense and practicality. I'm in favour of people making their own choices - just as you are, by the sound of it.

But I'm also puzzled by the incredulity of others who seem to think that just because they can't push a double, nobody else should either.......

By the way - some of my best friends ride triples.

John Stevenson

softlad wrote:

I don't understand why you think the French would have a monopoly on common sense and practicality.

You have it the wrong way round - my point is that the knee-jerk dismissal of triples often manifest in these discussions is a peculiarly English bit of daftness.

softlad

John Stevenson wrote:

You have it the wrong way round - my point is that the knee-jerk dismissal of triples often manifest in these discussions is a peculiarly English bit of daftness.

ok - but I must have missed the 'knee-jerk dismissal' posts.....

dreamlx10

Triples are for wimps, end of story !!

Stuy-b

i have a tiagra tripple chainset on the training bike, there is a very good reason for this, it was £40 brand new (a good £30 cheaper than a double at the time) haha iv not used the granny ring since iv had it and my mechs not even set up to let me use it anymore but i like it being there, i like the idea of being able to go touring if i ever wanted to. and it adds that little bit more weight to the training bike which is never a bad thing

John Stevenson

softlad wrote:

ok - but I must have missed the 'knee-jerk dismissal' posts.....

"two rings is fine on the road unless you are touring fully loaded"

softlad

John Stevenson wrote:

"two rings is fine on the road unless you are touring fully loaded"

that's a perfectly reasonable statement - it's hardly a knee-jerk dismissal of triples, is it..?

If I was to say that five-speed gearboxes are fine for road cars, only someone being deliberately obtuse would regard that as a 'knee-jerk' dismissal of six-speed gearboxes.....

John Stevenson

If I were to say that car analogies are almost always completely useless I'd have far more chance of being right.

I can think of several other reasons to use a triple other than touring loaded, so yeah, I think 'knee-jerk dismissal' is exactly what that is.

softlad

John Stevenson wrote:

If I were to say that car analogies are almost always completely useless I'd have far more chance of being right.

the car analogy is is exactly that - an analogy. It is no more or less valid because of it.

John Stevenson wrote:

I can think of several other reasons to use a triple other than touring loaded, so yeah, I think 'knee-jerk dismissal' is exactly what that is.

well there we are then. One person's 'knee-jerk dismissal' is another person's freely-held opinion.

Next, you'll tell me that some of your best friends are pedants.

redddraggon

John Stevenson wrote:

a peculiarly English bit of daftness.

1. I'm not English
2. I tried a triple, and it was alright for going up steep stuff, and going down the other side. But it was absolutely crap on rolling and flatter stuff, I was forever swapping between the middle ring and big ring, but I could never get a gear with a good chainline.

Essex Man

redddraggon wrote:

John Stevenson wrote:

a peculiarly English bit of daftness.

1. I'm not English
2. I tried a triple, and it was alright for going up steep stuff, and going down the other side. But it was absolutely crap on rolling and flatter stuff, I was forever swapping between the middle ring and big ring, but I could never get a gear with a good chainline.

But the middle ring/big ring is the same as for a standard double. On the rolling/flatter stuff, you should be strong enough to stay in the big ring ....

redddraggon

Essex Man wrote:

But the middle ring/big ring is the same as for a standard double. On the rolling/flatter stuff, you should be strong enough to stay in the big ring ....

They are the same size of rings but the with triple they are spaced further out. The Wider Q factor doesn't bother me though. The chainline is loads better with a double.

Bikehawk

Another recent convertfrom MTB, initiallly had a "standard" 54/39 double which killed me on hills, talked to my lbs and switched to a compact 50/34 double and now getting up the same hills without totally killing my legs. As others have said if you want a triple then get one but I've found that sticking with double that I feel like my climbing is getting stronger

naive

To address the OP: What you want is to have sufficient range of gears, each sufficiently close to the next, so that you can handle any gradient that you encounter without having big gaps in the gears.

With a derailleur system, the best way to have this would be to have a single chainring at the front, and enough sprockets at the back to get your gear range and spacing--the rear derailleur change is easier because it is done on the low-tension (bottom) part of the chain, and the simpler the system, the better. The total number of gears required will be less than with a multi-chainring setup, because you neither need nor have two similar gear ratios one using one chainring and one using another.

This setup is not achievable for the usual required gear range and spacing due to mechanical limitations, so more than one chainring is needed. However, the closer to the ideal situation, the better. In road riding, the maximum gradient is likely to be lower than in mountain biking, and the worst traction is likely to be higher, so the gear range required may be smaller. In that case, you can use a two-chainring setup, so you do.

If the gear range and spacing that you need cannot be achieved with two chainrings then you need three.

oddlad

Great discussion all. I am a noob to the forums and am looking at buying my first road bike after 6 months riding my MTB with slicks on the roads. I want something fun to ride, as well as being a touch more agile (says he, sitting here with broken pelvis after an argument with a car). I too have the triple vs double debate going on in my head.

To attempt to summarise the above:

1. It is a matter of personal preference. If you are used to a triple, and want a triple, get a triple. If you are comfortable in your abilities and want a double, get a double. If you are dithering between the two, consider a compact.

2. It depends on what you want out of your cycling. If you are Sunday morning fun/cream tea cycler who also does a bit of touring, then a triple sounds like a good choice, if you are a speed freak and need to build those muscles then a double is a good choice.

3. Everyone has their own opinions, because they are all based on their own experiences.

I think that number 3 is probably the cruncher here, as far as I am concerned. I do not want to buy a double and regret it a week later cos I can't get up hills. Similarly I don't want to buy a triple and end up with something that I don't use.

The cautious part of me says get a triple. The daring part of me says get a double and live with some pain for a while. The sensible part of me says get a compact (although the Specialized Allez doesn't come with this option as far as I can see, so it would be an optional upgrade - not necessarily a problem).

At the moment, the double argument is winning for me.

keef66

Or you could get a triple, and if you find you don't use the smallest chainring, take it off. (the Shimano triple shifter can be set up as a double) Then you're left with something in between a standard and a compact double 50 / 39

I'm keeping my granny ring since I'm heading rapidly into grandad territory.

redddraggon

keef66 wrote:

Or you could get a triple, and if you find you don't use the smallest chainring, take it off. (the Shimano triple shifter can be set up as a double) Then you're left with something in between a standard and a compact double 50 / 39

I'm keeping my granny ring since I'm heading rapidly into grandad territory.

You still have the only thing IMO that make triples crap and that's the chainline. You might aswell leave the granny on, because taking it off solves nothing.