Glad I bought a triple!

dmch2

I have a hill near me that I did at 4.3 mph the first time on my hybrid and got it up to 5.0mph.

Last night was the first time on the new road bike and I went up at 6.7mph. In first gear on the granny ring!

I'm amazed at how much quicker I could climb - it's not like me on the road bike is 30% heavier than me on the road bike. I guess using SPD-SLs so you can pull as well as push are the answer. I certainly noticed that it was my breathing rather than muscles that were maxed out.

Can't imagine what would have happened had I tried it on double or even a compact. OTOH I can see that you really good people wouldn't need the bottom ring and would be up it at twice my speed!

brin

what hill was it? sounds interesting

father_jack

pah should have a 53-11 fixie. wimp

dmch2

http://goo.gl/maps/d5bg

300ft up in about half a mile so only 1 in 9 on average. Although the middle bit is flatter and it's steeper near the end. I need more practice!

Mr Will

I'm not convinced by triples, if you can ride up it in second gear on your triple then you'd be able to do it on a compact

bice

Mr Will wrote:

I'm not convinced by triples, if you can ride up it in second gear on your triple then you'd be able to do it on a compact

... with a horrible chain line and a massive leap from 50/34 chainrings and never finding a usable gear.

I have a triple, a standard double and a compact. I hate the compact. A triple is far smoother and more versatile.

If you are feeling macho a standard double is much better than hopping around the chainrings on a compact: sure, the 34 will get you up a hill, and the 50 is fine once you have momentum on the flat. But everything else means farting about ad nauseam between the two chainrings.

A 50/34 is the vilest combination I have ever used.

keef66

'Nother happy triple user here. No massive jumps between gears front or rear. Very smooth progress whatever the terrain and despite my knackered knees.

UpTheWall

Aye - I reckon triples are better too. all the macho talk over doubles is clearly silly, and having more choice and smaller jumps is better for a smoother cadence, not to mention less stress on the joints.

Also, the talk of triples being harder to maintain is just ludicrous. We've been running triples on MTBs for years and they're fine.

it sounds like the original poster likes to spin the pedals fast up hills rather than crunch it which is more of a stress on the respiratdory system rather than the leg muscles. I prefer that approach too.

Problem is, all the manufacturers are dropping triples from their ranges at the top end in favour of doubles or compacts, so i suspect it's onyl a matter of time until that filters down to the lower specced chainsets.

rolf_f

Did Fleet Moss for the second time at the weekend. First was on my Dawes - 28lbs, Triple. Second time on my Look - 17lbs, Compact.

I think it felt harder on the Look - the triple certainly lets you use a gear that will get you up anything if there is enough daylight. I was in no danger of stopping on either but I do wonder how I'd do on a tougher hill. Came down to how long my strength would last on the higher gearing of the Look.

However, aside from climbs like that, I would far rather run the compact (I don't think a standard is realistic around here (West Yorks) - I nearly ordered a standard on for my new commuter but changed it to a compact as I thought the hill I face right outside my house, first thing in the morning, is tough enough as it is). I use the Dawes on my commute and the small ring just makes the shift more awkward. The front mech is un-indexed down tube shifted to be fair but the ultimate would be down tube double which works as well as any integrated set up.

I suppose the gaps can be annoying on the double (50:34 vile? Lol - it's OK. Oddly enough I don't have trouble finding a useable gear) but, as the inner ring on the triple isn't used on the commute whatever the gradient, it is just there to add weight.

richk

Don't think I'd buy a road bike that didn't have a triple.

dmch2

UpTheWall wrote:

Aye - I reckon triples are better too. all the macho talk over doubles is clearly silly, and having more choice and smaller jumps is better for a smoother cadence, not to mention less stress on the joints.

it sounds like the original poster likes to spin the pedals fast up hills rather than crunch it which is more of a stress on the respiratdory system rather than the leg muscles. I prefer that approach too.

The OP is just rubbish at climbing hills! Maybe in a few years I won't need the triple but I definitely do at the moment!

If a hill gets stepper than I can always power up the hills but if they're more than a hundred yards or so I'll probably be falling off :shock: :oops:

UpTheWall

dmch2 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

Aye - I reckon triples are better too. all the macho talk over doubles is clearly silly, and having more choice and smaller jumps is better for a smoother cadence, not to mention less stress on the joints.

it sounds like the original poster likes to spin the pedals fast up hills rather than crunch it which is more of a stress on the respiratdory system rather than the leg muscles. I prefer that approach too.

The OP is just rubbish at climbing hills! Maybe in a few years I won't need the triple but I definitely do at the moment!

If a hill gets stepper than I can always power up the hills but if they're more than a hundred yards or so I'll probably be falling off :shock: :oops:

Not everyone is as fast as Contador up hills!

starlet_gt

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

I'm not convinced by triples, if you can ride up it in second gear on your triple then you'd be able to do it on a compact

... with a horrible chain line and a massive leap from 50/34 chainrings and never finding a usable gear.

I have a triple, a standard double and a compact. I hate the compact. A triple is far smoother and more versatile.

If you are feeling macho a standard double is much better than hopping around the chainrings on a compact: sure, the 34 will get you up a hill, and the 50 is fine once you have momentum on the flat. But everything else means farting about ad nauseam between the two chainrings.

A 50/34 is the vilest combination I have ever used.

I found when I was riding triple, that I changed gear far more then, than I do now using a compact.

bice

starlet_gt wrote:

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

I'm not convinced by triples, if you can ride up it in second gear on your triple then you'd be able to do it on a compact

... with a horrible chain line and a massive leap from 50/34 chainrings and never finding a usable gear.

I have a triple, a standard double and a compact. I hate the compact. A triple is far smoother and more versatile.

If you are feeling macho a standard double is much better than hopping around the chainrings on a compact: sure, the 34 will get you up a hill, and the 50 is fine once you have momentum on the flat. But everything else means farting about ad nauseam between the two chainrings.

A 50/34 is the vilest combination I have ever used.

I found when I was riding triple, that I changed gear far more then, than I do now using a compact.

Yes, but they are small incremental changes up or down, not the huge leap of a 50/34.

I have replaced my 50/34 with a 50/40, which is far better for London/ flattish geography. Unfortunately, I have now left the bike in Pembrokeshire, and will have to stick the 34 back on again. the 34 will get me up the hills and the 50 will get me down again, but anything on the flat will mean jumping between the chain rings.

Also, the chain line is awful on a 50/34. It is noticeably less smooth than my triple or proper double. A triple is far, far more versatile IMO, but there is a prejudice against them because they are seen as girly.

Mr Will

bice wrote:

starlet_gt wrote:

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

I'm not convinced by triples, if you can ride up it in second gear on your triple then you'd be able to do it on a compact

... with a horrible chain line and a massive leap from 50/34 chainrings and never finding a usable gear.

I have a triple, a standard double and a compact. I hate the compact. A triple is far smoother and more versatile.

If you are feeling macho a standard double is much better than hopping around the chainrings on a compact: sure, the 34 will get you up a hill, and the 50 is fine once you have momentum on the flat. But everything else means farting about ad nauseam between the two chainrings.

A 50/34 is the vilest combination I have ever used.

I found when I was riding triple, that I changed gear far more then, than I do now using a compact.

Yes, but they are small incremental changes up or down, not the huge leap of a 50/34.

I have replaced my 50/34 with a 50/40, which is far better for London/ flattish geography. Unfortunately, I have now left the bike in Pembrokeshire, and will have to stick the 34 back on again. the 34 will get me up the hills and the 50 will get me down again, but anything on the flat will mean jumping between the chain rings.

Also, the chain line is awful on a 50/34. It is noticeably less smooth than my triple or proper double. A triple is far, far more versatile IMO, but there is a prejudice against them because they are seen as girly.

I disagree, there is still a massive overlap between the big and small rings on a compact and the jump between the two is not particularly large, so you shouldn't have to switch too often and when you do it's not a massive problem.

On my old bike with a triple I found myself shuffling gears all the time. On my compact I switch to the small ring for steep hills then swap to the big ring promptly when I reach the top for the flats/descents. At no point do I need to use the small ring on the flat. Suits me great.

I fail to see how a triple is more versitile, the top ratios are the same and you only gain one lower ratio at the bottom. All the other extra ratios are just more overlap.

brin

dmch2 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

Aye - I reckon triples are better too. all the macho talk over doubles is clearly silly, and having more choice and smaller jumps is better for a smoother cadence, not to mention less stress on the joints.

it sounds like the original poster likes to spin the pedals fast up hills rather than crunch it which is more of a stress on the respiratdory system rather than the leg muscles. I prefer that approach too.

The OP is just rubbish at climbing hills! Maybe in a few years I won't need the triple but I definitely do at the moment!

If a hill gets stepper than I can always power up the hills but if they're more than a hundred yards or so I'll probably be falling off :shock: :oops:

you need to work on your climbing, been up that one a few times, not a climb, more of a bump really, i thought you meant something like 'peth bank, medomsley, or even crawleyside'
if you need the granny ring try approaching it in a different (higher) gear every week,don't be bothered about how long it takes, just concentrate on completing it in a smooth cadence, you'll soon get the hang of it and will be using the middle ring in no time

father_jack

Isn't the small ring on a double a granny ring too? ;-)

Radioactiveman

odd I never leave the big ring unless I go through the trough of bowland or up the lake district. Compact seems fine for me much prefer it to my old triple.

Bit like marmite this triple v compact v double topic i suppose.

WHat do the pros use in the mountains beside superhuman strength etc.

bice

Mr Will wrote:

At no point do I need to use the small ring on the flat.

But what is your chain doing when you are on the big chainring and 3rd,4th or 5th?

UpTheWall

I'm surprised by how much people feel the need to show off about not needing granny rings when this topic comes up!

Some people are just not as fast as others, whether due to natural talent, injury, lack of training or indeed age.

And indeed some people prefer to take it easy and enjoy the scenery - not always all about going as fast as you can until your legs bleed, eh?

I think it's a shame that manufacturers are moving away from triples - I reckon the ones that will benefit most from the move will be knee surgeons!

dmch2

brin wrote:

you need to work on your climbing, been up that one a few times, not a climb, more of a bump really, i thought you meant something like 'peth bank, medomsley, or even crawleyside'
if you need the granny ring try approaching it in a different (higher) gear every week,don't be bothered about how long it takes, just concentrate on completing it in a smooth cadence, you'll soon get the hang of it and will be using the middle ring in no time

Indeed I do need the practice! I've only been riding (other than 3 mile commutes which stopped in 2008) for 2 months on a hybrid and 2 rides on the new road bike!

rake

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

At no point do I need to use the small ring on the flat.

But what is your chain doing when you are on the big chainring and 3rd,4th or 5th?

in actual fact it bends less than a standard double most of the time because the 50 is a little lower gear so a higher rear gear is used. i only use the small ring for steeper hills, and when i hit the foot of a steep hill the large jump down saves me from stalling, shifting like mad or pedalling like a loonie before i need to.

bice

rake wrote:

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

At no point do I need to use the small ring on the flat.

But what is your chain doing when you are on the big chainring and 3rd,4th or 5th?

in actual fact it bends less than a standard double most of the time because the 50 is a little lower gear so a higher rear gear is used. i only use the small ring for steeper hills, and when i hit the foot of a steep hill the large jump down saves me from stalling, shifting like mad or pedalling like a loonie before i need to.

Eh? If you are staying on the big chainring you are going to have a sharp angle in lower gears. I try never to go lower than 6 or 5 on a standard double on the big chain ring; the smaller chainring can do 1-8 quite happily without a sharp chain angle.

rake

bice wrote:

rake wrote:

bice wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

At no point do I need to use the small ring on the flat.

But what is your chain doing when you are on the big chainring and 3rd,4th or 5th?

in actual fact it bends less than a standard double most of the time because the 50 is a little lower gear so a higher rear gear is used. i only use the small ring for steeper hills, and when i hit the foot of a steep hill the large jump down saves me from stalling, shifting like mad or pedalling like a loonie before i need to.

Eh? If you are staying on the big chainring you are going to have a sharp angle in lower gears. I try never to go lower than 6 or 5 on a standard double on the big chain ring; the smaller chainring can do 1-8 quite happily without a sharp chain angle.

eh. 53-17 = 50-16. so the standard has a sharper chain angle in that gear.

dmch2

Hills are definitely getting easier. Apart from the really steep (in my language that probably about 1 in 8) hills or when I'm tired I only use the bottom ring as an insurance policy.

Glad I've got the insurance policy though as it helps keep the mind positive!

twotyred

I can't be bothered with triples. I find myself swapping chain rings all the time and trying to decide which combination of front and rear I should be using. With compact I keep it in the big ring on the flat and moderate hills and small ring for steeper stuff- simples.

If you use a 28 tooth cassette the bottom gear of a compact will be about the same as the second gear of a 27 tooth cassette on a triple.

dmch2

twotyred wrote:

I can't be bothered with triples. I find myself swapping chain rings all the time and trying to decide which combination of front and rear I should be using. With compact I keep it in the big ring on the flat and moderate hills and small ring for steeper stuff- simples.

If you use a 28 tooth cassette the bottom gear of a compact will be about the same as the second gear of a 27 tooth cassette on a triple.

That's why it's great that most bikes offer the choice and everybody's happy

desweller

I love my triple. It's got me up some steep ones where others have been walking (and that feels good).

nubenotforlong

I delayed buying my focus cayo for weeks because of this argument. I bought the triple and having never rode a compact for any real length of time I have never regreted it. All the versatility I need with negligible additional weight. My pride was not hurt when I passed compact riders climbing in my granny ring on the Manchester 100 recently.

Tony

father_jack

People with triples put road cycling to shame




Mine^