Double or Triple Help ?

Silversladey

I am new to Road biking, I am going to invest in a bike but I am not sure what gearing set up i need.

I have noticed that a lot of bikes have a double ring set up, with some still favouring Three front rings.


What are the Pros and Cons of the different set ups and which one do you reccommend ?

Thanks

MattJPaul

Silversladey wrote:

I am new to Road biking, I am going to invest in a bike but I am not sure what gearing set up i need.

I have noticed that a lot of bikes have a double ring set up, with some still favouring Three front rings.


What are the Pros and Cons of the different set ups and which one do you reccommend ?

Thanks

Double, all the way.

It depends what sort of riding you want to do but for my money you don't get many more usable gears with a triple, and you can power up most hills just fine with the bottom end of a double.

I say it depends because if you want to tour you may well need the lower gears a triple affords to make the hundreds of miles a little easier on your legs. If you're in it for fitness with perhaps some sportives, however, make it a double.

Edit: You'll also get fitter, faster. It would be too tempting to use the lower gears you do get with a triple.

RowCycle

A triple has more range of gears.

On a road bike I find a double is fine.

oldwelshman

I would not say definateky a double, there are many factors to look at for you.
How old are you, what is your physique, how fit are you and where are you likely to ride.
You can have a normal double 53/39 with wide range rear sprocket. Living where you are you would need a good lever of fitness for this.
You could go for compact and a closer range on rear sprocket or even compact with wider range on rear. The compact has less teeth on front rings which basically gives lower ratio gears making it easier for climbs.
With closer range on rear sprockets it makes it easy to find right gear as the gaps are small between gears whereas if you have a wide range of sprockets on the rear you can sometimes end up jumping between gears due to tyhe large jump, especially on climbs as most rear sprockets are like 13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25,27 so you can see they are close at high end and gaps at lower.
A triple has three rings at the front giving you more gears to choose from but without going into much detail a few of these will be duplicated.
I think the majority of riders from beginners to racers could use a compact, especially if you get a spare rear sprocket so you could use one for flatter rides and one for very hilly, I do this and use them for racing and for long hilly events.

Go for a ride with cwmbran guys I am sure they will advise you

father_jack

Double is fine 99% of the time, however carrying stuff home need a triple, loaded down with pannier bags, shopping and a trailer.

Got a double but cost to upgrade to a triple will be considerable. Since chainsets last so long going to be a while until it's changed to a triple.

Triple is onyl slightly heavier, and useful if you need it. If you've got a double and need it, well you don't have it.

I think with small cassette will need it more, running a slightly larger sprocket on my tourer so I'm fine with double, but on road bike smaller sprocket so think will have a problem in I just use double.

oldwelshman

As I siad it depends on hiscircumstances

father_jack

Only con I can see for double is extra weight, how many grammes? Snobbery and all that, who cares? :roll:

chrishd883

One of cycling's "can of worms"!!!

Armstrong and Contador only have a double, so why do we need anythiing else?
Maybe because some of us aren't as good or strong as the pro riders?
But's that's just a guess!

In the end it depends upon your age, strength, fitness, etc.

A standard double with a standard range rear cassette may prove too much on some hills on some rides. Because a hill gets harder to climb depending upon how many miles you've ridden before getting there!

A compact crank can give the range of a triple but is a compromise - and the current trend in cycling. But you will find yourself changing gear more often on the front. Not a problem - but a difference. Also the change between the front rings is quite large, you might need to compensate by a change on the back at the same time

A triple gives a good range of gears with a very useful middle ring - that can probably cope with most of your riding. Slightly more weight. But the triple is frowned upon by some - more to do with snobbery than anything else. But I have climbed many a hill on a sportive whilst watching others push some very expensive bikes.

FWIW my bikes are equipped wth a mix of compact doubles and triples.

If you are a "beginner" I would suggest a triple to start with. Tho' a compact would do just as well. Its just that a compact is a compromise - if a good one - between the normal standard crank and a triple crank.

Plus if you start with a triple and want to change to a compact / standard double at a later stage you only need to change the crank (and maybe bottom bracket).

oldwelshman

chrishd883 wrote:

One of cycling's "can of worms"!!!

Armstrong and Contador only have a double, so why do we need anythiing else?
Maybe because some of us aren't as good or strong as the pro riders?
But's that's just a guess!

In the end it depends upon your age, strength, fitness, etc.

A standard double with a standard range rear cassette may prove too much on some hills on some rides. Because a hill gets harder to climb depending upon how many miles you've ridden before getting there!

A compact crank can give the range of a triple but is a compromise - and the current trend in cycling. But you will find yourself changing gear more often on the front. Not a problem - but a difference. Also the change between the front rings is quite large, you might need to compensate by a change on the back at the same time

A triple gives a good range of gears with a very useful middle ring - that can probably cope with most of your riding. Slightly more weight. But the triple is frowned upon by some - more to do with snobbery than anything else. But I have climbed many a hill on a sportive whilst watching others push some very expensive bikes.

FWIW my bikes are equipped wth a mix of compact doubles and triples.

If you are a "beginner" I would suggest a triple to start with. Tho' a compact would do just as well. Its just that a compact is a compromise - if a good one - between the normal standard crank and a triple crank.

Plus if you start with a triple and want to change to a compact / standard double at a later stage you only need to change the crank (and maybe bottom bracket).

Same as most of what I said but why do you say that with a compact you willl change more on the fornt?
I do not, I use big ring untilI get to second rear sprocket then if need lower gear change down on front and then down to about 5 on the back so only usually change on front once through range of what I use.

Garz

In short:

Pros of triple are better selection of gears and should be able to tackle all gradients on offer.

Cons - heavier, and may make you lazier or take longer to improve fitness. Oh and some snobs will disown you at the thought of a triple on a road bike.

As oldwelshman asked, you may be better mentioning your age/ability/goals for specific advice (before he got intoxicated).

chrishd883

Glad to hear that we agree!! http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/images/s ... on_lol.gif

I said that one might change gears on the front a little more often with a compact because that has been the experience of a friend who has recently switched from a standard double (with the inner ring changed to a 38 tooth chain ring) to a 34/50 compact crank.

I guess it depends upon the rider. If they are strong enough to ride on the big ring for the most part it makes little difference. If, however the rider uses the typical middle ring of a triple or inner ring of a standard double (say 38 / 39 teeth) then you might feel the "gap" with a compact crank.

At the end of the day it can be a very personal thing. I once ran an 8 speed bike with compact crank and "wide " rear cassette - set up for long hilly rides - and yes it did everything I asked of it. But I would sometimes struggle to find the right gear. The gaps between the gears are bigger - the jumps between the lower gears on the cassette were by necessity larger.

Some riders find the jump from 50 to 34 on the front too large- often requiring changes on the cassette. Others don't even see it as an issue.

At the end of the day I know the type of riding I want to do, my strengths and weaknesses and I set up my bikes accordingly. FWIW I'm just building a bike up now and have opted for a compact crank - primarily because I am trying to build up a light bike on a budget. But personally prefer a triple - I can then have a closer range rear cassette, making it easier to find the right cadence for me at any given time.

My bikes tend to have the same gear range, so the crank dictates the rear cassette. Been over to South Wales a few times recently and been glad of the gears!!

Silversladey

My fitness level - above average been riding Mountain bikes for a few years, but always had a soft spot for road bikes.
I am not a powerful rider, tall and lean and i do tend to spin the granny ring on my local blasts around Cwmcarn and Blaenavon.
I am not worried about bike snobery, never have been just wondered what would be best for me.
I was concerned that the severity of some of the road riding gradiants I wanted to ride would be a bit tough on a double. :oops:

Dmak

Silversladey wrote:

My fitness level - above average been riding Mountain bikes for a few years, but always had a soft spot for road bikes.
I am not a powerful rider, tall and lean and i do tend to spin the granny ring on my local blasts around Cwmcarn and Blaenavon.
I am not worried about bike snobery, never have been just wondered what would be best for me.
I was concerned that the severity of some of the road riding gradiants I wanted to ride would be a bit tough on a double. :oops:

Given that you live in Wales I'd say get a compact double or a triple. A standard double would be pretty hard work! If not near impossible on some of the climbs you'll encounter.

You get much much easier/shorter gears on an MTB, I feel a standard double would just make you hate your new road bike!

If you feel you really need short MTB type gears maybe look into getting a Ribble bike fitted out with SRAM Apex. You can spec the bike with a long cage rear mech and an 11-32 rear cassette. This should take the sting out of any climb.

morstar

chrishd883 wrote:

One of cycling's "can of worms"!!!

Armstrong and Contador only have a double, so why do we need anythiing else?
Maybe because some of us aren't as good or strong as the pro riders?
But's that's just a guess!

In the end it depends upon your age, strength, fitness, etc.

A standard double with a standard range rear cassette may prove too much on some hills on some rides. Because a hill gets harder to climb depending upon how many miles you've ridden before getting there!

A compact crank can give the range of a triple but is a compromise - and the current trend in cycling. But you will find yourself changing gear more often on the front. Not a problem - but a difference. Also the change between the front rings is quite large, you might need to compensate by a change on the back at the same time

A triple gives a good range of gears with a very useful middle ring - that can probably cope with most of your riding. Slightly more weight. But the triple is frowned upon by some - more to do with snobbery than anything else. But I have climbed many a hill on a sportive whilst watching others push some very expensive bikes.

FWIW my bikes are equipped wth a mix of compact doubles and triples.

If you are a "beginner" I would suggest a triple to start with. Tho' a compact would do just as well. Its just that a compact is a compromise - if a good one - between the normal standard crank and a triple crank.

Plus if you start with a triple and want to change to a compact / standard double at a later stage you only need to change the crank (and maybe bottom bracket).

This is a very good assessment.
I have recently purchased a bike with a compact and am still having the debate about whether it is the right choice.
Both my old steel bike and commuter have 42:52 front rings, the commuter is a triple which has the added 30 inner.
On undulating terrain, I plough along pretty much 95% of the time quite happily in the 42 ring. I never had a problem with any hill on the 42 tooth ring but I was only doing shorter rides so was sometimes forcing my way up climbs. Started doing longer hilly rides and found I wasn't strong enough to ride climbs in the same way after 50 miles or so and suffered.
The compact has removed this problem of fatigue but I do miss the utility of my 42 tooth ring. The 50 on the compact does cover a good range of riding but you do get into the realms of cross chaining or constantly switching between lots of gears when you're not quite comfortable in the 50. A flattish but windy ride would be a good example of this type of occasion.
I keep thinking I would be happier with a triple and snobbery of others is something I may just have to get over.

chrishd883

Based on your reply I would say that a compact double or a triple would meet your needs much better than a standard double.
.
You can change the rear cassette to suit your rides / gradients. The granny ring on a triple would obviously require a smaller rear cog range than a compact. so offers smaller jumps between the gears (at the lower range of your cassette).

With regards to whcih groupset - Shimano can be made to work with a 30 tooth rear cassette, although this is outside the official range. I believe the Campagnolo and Sram systems offer a slightly bigger range of options for the rear cassette on their road kit.

Don't know anything about the Ribble bike, but +1 for everything else Dmak said above.

Paul32uk

Someone mentioned that a double compact gives the same range as a triple. This is incorrect. The granny ring on a triple is smaller than the granny ring on a compact. A triple is 50/39/30 where as a compact is 50/34. So if you run with the same rear cassette the triple will get you up hills easier.

If you're having to ask what to get it is probably a safe bet to go with a triple. You've covered all bases that way at the expense of a few grams in weight and a turn up of the nose from the fashion / statement brigade.

I say this as I'm a trek riding, yellow jersey, hairy legged road cyclist Do I care, NO. The best thing was when I turned up for my first sportive I was given number 001 to put on my bike

Rich Hcp

I found changing over from MTB to roadie (I have both) a triple is easier for me.

However, my circumstances are different, my left lower leg and ankle is weak, I was born like it and therefore I sometimes need the mechanical assistance that I feel I get from a triple, I can't do big gear changes and I can't spin fast, so I have to grind away up those hills.

Go with what you're comfortable with

EarlyGo

Silversladey,

There have been some good reasoned posts on here but for what it's worth heres my novice's view point:

Get a triple!

You say you are used to spinning in the granny ring - get a triple!

You are concerned about the severity of some of your local gradients - get a triple!

You are not worried about bike snobbery - get a triple!

The worst case scenario is that you buy a triple and never use the granny ring. That just means that you'll be carrying a few hundred grams extra around every time you ride. However, if you buy a double or compact and need extra gears then you'll have to fork out quite a bit of cash to change to a triple and will be suffering and not enjoying your bike on the more severe hills until you do.

Regards, EarlyGo

sungod

Silversladey wrote:

My fitness level - above average been riding Mountain bikes for a few years, but always had a soft spot for road bikes.
I am not a powerful rider, tall and lean and i do tend to spin the granny ring on my local blasts around Cwmcarn and Blaenavon.
I am not worried about bike snobery, never have been just wondered what would be best for me.
I was concerned that the severity of some of the road riding gradiants I wanted to ride would be a bit tough on a double. :oops:

see what front/rear combination you are happy with as the higest gearing to go up the hills you are talking about

then use this calculator to see how this compares to what you'd get with a typical compact set up (34/26 most likely, use 700x23 as the road wheel size, crank length probably will be 172.5 for a tall lady's bike)

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/index.html

with the bigger wheels, road gearing is a bit harder than 26" mtb for the same chainring:cassette, c. 1-2 tooth difference on the cassette

road bike is probably going to be a few kg lighter than an mtb, and will have lower rolling resistance on decent surfaces, so you'll benefit here, again this might amount to an extra 1-2 tooth difference on the cassette

these effects roughly cancel out, so you can reasonably compare the gearing road/mtb

zanes

Paul32uk wrote:

If you're having to ask what to get it is probably a safe bet to go with a triple.

+1

MattC59

+1 for the triple.

If you don't need the granny ring most of the time, don't use it. But.......... there will come the day, especially in the area you talk about, where you'll be glad of that extra ring to winch your way up the hill.

It's always better to ride that hill than walk it
(although I don't always)
:roll:

oldwelshman

chrishd883 wrote:

I said that one might change gears on the front a little more often with a compact because that has been the experience of a friend who has recently switched from a standard double (with the inner ring changed to a 38 tooth chain ring) to a 34/50 compact crank.

I guess it depends upon the rider. If they are strong enough to ride on the big ring for the most part it makes little difference. If, however the rider uses the typical middle ring of a triple or inner ring of a standard double (say 38 / 39 teeth) then you might feel the "gap" with a compact crank.

At the end of the day it can be a very personal thing. I once ran an 8 speed bike with compact crank and "wide " rear cassette - set up for long hilly rides - and yes it did everything I asked of it. But I would sometimes struggle to find the right gear. The gaps between the gears are bigger - the jumps between the lower gears on the cassette were by necessity larger.

Some riders find the jump from 50 to 34 on the front too large- often requiring changes on the cassette. Others don't even see it as an issue.

At the end of the day I know the type of riding I want to do, my strengths and weaknesses and I set up my bikes accordingly. FWIW I'm just building a bike up now and have opted for a compact crank - primarily because I am trying to build up a light bike on a budget. But personally prefer a triple - I can then have a closer range rear cassette, making it easier to find the right cadence for me at any given time.

My bikes tend to have the same gear range, so the crank dictates the rear cassette. Been over to South Wales a few times recently and been glad of the gears!!

Just a couple of comments
Fist of all it has nothing to do with strength to stay on the big ring, it is more to do with the gear ratio selected.
Also you say the gaps are larger but this is not true the opposite is true in fact because you have less teeth on the fron ring, you can see this in the table below.
I do not know why your friend changes so often on the front.
You can see below for a compact with a 11 to 21 rear you can use large chain ring until 50 x 19 for 1.1 then change down to 34 front and 13 back to give 70.6 then just use rest on the back, no need to go back to the big front.
So basically with a compact 50 x 34 and 11 x 21 rear you can get 17 usable gears with only one change of the front changer.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21
53 130.1 119.3 110.1 102.2 95.4 89.4 84.2 79.5 75.3 68.1
50 122.7 112.5 103.8 96.4 90 84.4 79.4 75 71.1 64.
39 95.7 87.8 81 75.2 70.2 65.8 61.9 58.5 55.4 50.1
34 83.5 76.5 70.6 65.6 61.2 57.4 54 51 48.3 43.7

morstar

oldwelshman wrote:

chrishd883 wrote:

I said that one might change gears on the front a little more often with a compact because that has been the experience of a friend who has recently switched from a standard double (with the inner ring changed to a 38 tooth chain ring) to a 34/50 compact crank.

I guess it depends upon the rider. If they are strong enough to ride on the big ring for the most part it makes little difference. If, however the rider uses the typical middle ring of a triple or inner ring of a standard double (say 38 / 39 teeth) then you might feel the "gap" with a compact crank.

At the end of the day it can be a very personal thing. I once ran an 8 speed bike with compact crank and "wide " rear cassette - set up for long hilly rides - and yes it did everything I asked of it. But I would sometimes struggle to find the right gear. The gaps between the gears are bigger - the jumps between the lower gears on the cassette were by necessity larger.

Some riders find the jump from 50 to 34 on the front too large- often requiring changes on the cassette. Others don't even see it as an issue.

At the end of the day I know the type of riding I want to do, my strengths and weaknesses and I set up my bikes accordingly. FWIW I'm just building a bike up now and have opted for a compact crank - primarily because I am trying to build up a light bike on a budget. But personally prefer a triple - I can then have a closer range rear cassette, making it easier to find the right cadence for me at any given time.

My bikes tend to have the same gear range, so the crank dictates the rear cassette. Been over to South Wales a few times recently and been glad of the gears!!

Just a couple of comments
Fist of all it has nothing to do with strength to stay on the big ring, it is more to do with the gear ratio selected.
Also you say the gaps are larger but this is not true the opposite is true in fact because you have less teeth on the fron ring, you can see this in the table below.
I do not know why your friend changes so often on the front.
You can see below for a compact with a 11 to 21 rear you can use large chain ring until 50 x 19 for 1.1 then change down to 34 front and 13 back to give 70.6 then just use rest on the back, no need to go back to the big front.
So basically with a compact 50 x 34 and 11 x 21 rear you can get 17 usable gears with only one change of the front changer.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21
53 130.1 119.3 110.1 102.2 95.4 89.4 84.2 79.5 75.3 68.1
50 122.7 112.5 103.8 96.4 90 84.4 79.4 75 71.1 64.
39 95.7 87.8 81 75.2 70.2 65.8 61.9 58.5 55.4 50.1
34 83.5 76.5 70.6 65.6 61.2 57.4 54 51 48.3 43.7

The spread of gears on a compact is very good with little overlap. That is not the issue. The issue for me personally is that the switch between front chain rings happens quite close to the normal riding range.
I do most flat riding in the 50 but you can find in challenging conditions or on undulations you make ugly combined front and back shifts quite regularly or cross chain a lot.
For me, these are conditions where I would be comfortably going up and down the rear cassette in the 42 front ring.
With a triple, I can do most of my riding in the middle ring. Have a large ring for fast terrain and a granny ring for hard climbs. A lot more overlap of gears but the useable range of gears are in the best place on the cassette.

garryc

My first (entry level) bike had a triple it was great, I could get up almost anything. This is a good thing for me as I'm rubbish at getting up hills.

For my second bike (posh carbon) I did a bit of calculation before I ordered it. With a compact double and the right cassette I would only lose the very lowest gear from my triple (which I rarely, if ever, used).

From now on I would always go for a compact double.

arthur_scrimshaw

morstar wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

chrishd883 wrote:

I said that one might change gears on the front a little more often with a compact because that has been the experience of a friend who has recently switched from a standard double (with the inner ring changed to a 38 tooth chain ring) to a 34/50 compact crank.

I guess it depends upon the rider. If they are strong enough to ride on the big ring for the most part it makes little difference. If, however the rider uses the typical middle ring of a triple or inner ring of a standard double (say 38 / 39 teeth) then you might feel the "gap" with a compact crank.

At the end of the day it can be a very personal thing. I once ran an 8 speed bike with compact crank and "wide " rear cassette - set up for long hilly rides - and yes it did everything I asked of it. But I would sometimes struggle to find the right gear. The gaps between the gears are bigger - the jumps between the lower gears on the cassette were by necessity larger.

Some riders find the jump from 50 to 34 on the front too large- often requiring changes on the cassette. Others don't even see it as an issue.

At the end of the day I know the type of riding I want to do, my strengths and weaknesses and I set up my bikes accordingly. FWIW I'm just building a bike up now and have opted for a compact crank - primarily because I am trying to build up a light bike on a budget. But personally prefer a triple - I can then have a closer range rear cassette, making it easier to find the right cadence for me at any given time.

My bikes tend to have the same gear range, so the crank dictates the rear cassette. Been over to South Wales a few times recently and been glad of the gears!!

Just a couple of comments
Fist of all it has nothing to do with strength to stay on the big ring, it is more to do with the gear ratio selected.
Also you say the gaps are larger but this is not true the opposite is true in fact because you have less teeth on the fron ring, you can see this in the table below.
I do not know why your friend changes so often on the front.
You can see below for a compact with a 11 to 21 rear you can use large chain ring until 50 x 19 for 1.1 then change down to 34 front and 13 back to give 70.6 then just use rest on the back, no need to go back to the big front.
So basically with a compact 50 x 34 and 11 x 21 rear you can get 17 usable gears with only one change of the front changer.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21
53 130.1 119.3 110.1 102.2 95.4 89.4 84.2 79.5 75.3 68.1
50 122.7 112.5 103.8 96.4 90 84.4 79.4 75 71.1 64.
39 95.7 87.8 81 75.2 70.2 65.8 61.9 58.5 55.4 50.1
34 83.5 76.5 70.6 65.6 61.2 57.4 54 51 48.3 43.7

The spread of gears on a compact is very good with little overlap. That is not the issue. The issue for me personally is that the switch between front chain rings happens quite close to the normal riding range.
I do most flat riding in the 50 but you can find in challenging conditions or on undulations you make ugly combined front and back shifts quite regularly or cross chain a lot.
For me, these are conditions where I would be comfortably going up and down the rear cassette in the 42 front ring.
With a triple, I can do most of my riding in the middle ring. Have a large ring for fast terrain and a granny ring for hard climbs. A lot more overlap of gears but the useable range of gears are in the best place on the cassette.

+1 to that, I found this when I got my road bike with a compact after using a triple on a hybrid, however after 6 months I find this less of an issue and only drop on to the 34 on the (for me) steep bits. I think part of this is my reluctance to drop down as I find the change a bit dramatic, it's such a big drop and need to ensure I go up a few gears on the back to reduce the difference (and find this stops me dropping the chain which I've done on a couple of occasions)

Alibran

[quote="EarlyGo"Get a triple!

You say you are used to spinning in the granny ring - get a triple!

You are concerned about the severity of some of your local gradients - get a triple!

You are not worried about bike snobbery - get a triple![/quote]

Agreed. Go for the triple.

I hardly ever use my granny ring, but on the occasions when I do use it, I'm very glad it's there.

keef66

'nother vote for a triple. I went from mtb to roadie just after knee surgery, so I didn't want to be doing any grinding up hills till the knees recovered.

50/39/30 chainrings with a 12-25 10 sp cassette mean't I had no big jumps between gears, and could always find a comfortable cadence.

Now I'm fitter and a bit faster, but I still make use of the 30 chainring occasionally. If I was choosing a new bike now I think I'd still go for a triple.

passout

I've ridden triple, double & compact. They all work fine & it depends on you and the bike (weight, purpose etc). On balance though I'd say compact for a beginner unless you're aiming to to tour or cycle up Lakeland passes much of the time (in which case triple).