Triple chainset?

bagz3

What are the disadvantages of having a triple chainset?

Are majority of people going with these nowadays? Surely a case of the more the merrier?

Alibran

No disadvantages, unless you're racing at a high enough level that the weight of one chainring will make a difference.

As for people going for triples now, I somewhat doubt it, unless the majority of people buying new bikes are having the same trouble as I had recently finding a bike they like with a triple.

nochekmate

To the OP:

Perceived disadvantages:
Granny Ring rarely used unless encountering serious gradients - thus additional weight for little usage.
Aesthetically some people don't like the appearance of them
Others argue that set-up may require more fettling to hit gears/changes sweetly
Association with perceived weakness of the rider

Are they used by the majority?

No - more and more people are overcoming the gearing ratios by using a compact 50/34T chainset and coupling this with a 12/25 or even a 12/28 cassette. 12/25 is good enough usually (although I failed to get up Wrynose from Ambleside on my 34/25 set-up :oops: )

cyco2

nochekmate wrote:

To the OP:
No - more and more people are overcoming the gearing ratios by using a compact 50/34T chainset and coupling this with a 12/25 or even a 12/28 cassette. 12/25 is good enough usually (although I failed to get up Wrynose from Ambleside on my 34/25 set-up :oops: )

I had a 38/25 back in the 60's when I tried Wrynose and only did one hairpin and failed at the second due to wheel slip. I wish there were triples then!

unixnerd

I run a triple on all my bikes because I live somewhere very hilly (local club runs a time trial from Aviemore to the top car park on Cairngorm!). When I was less fit my cassette was an 11-28 giving me a pretty low granny gear. These days I run 12-25.

My lowest gear of 30x25 is about the same ratio I could get on a compact with a 34x28 (using an 11-28 cassette). My highest gear is 52x12, similar to a 50x11. But the advantage is that I have smaller gaps between gears, my cassette's range is 13 teeth vs 17.

team47b

So which is better/less embarrassing, an unaesthetic triple or to be seen walking up a hill? :oops:

hodge68

Surely the rise of the triple and compact with 12-28ish cassette is to encourage more riders onto the road and as with myself, some will be heavy and less fit than in the past. As for which is better i have gone from a compact with 12-25 to 12-28 and do notice the gap between gears, its not a problem and i plan to go back at some point. Which will be easy to do, unlike if i had a triple and wished to change.Having said that i would have a triple if i liked the bike it was on.

marjorie dawes

i now run a 50/38 and a 12/23 on one bike, but then essex is fairly flat, i also didn't enjoy the massive ratio change on a 50/34, seemed to much to me,
i also run a triple with 12/25 on the back when touring on my dawes milk race, that seems the best of all to me!

Monty Dog

I have a triple on one bike - it's a CX / travel / go-anywhere bike that gets used in everything from fast club rides to snowy, offroad excursions, where a 34x26 is too-tall. Triples are also useful if laden with luggage where you just want to find the 'right gear' for steadily hauling your way up long hills and likewise, have the big chainring for zooming down the other side.

treaclepig

Sorry to jump in on this very interesting thread, but my post is sort of relevant.
Having ridden (and needed) a triple with a bottom gear of 30/26 I have just ordered a bike off Ribble and have gone for a compact double with a bottom gear of 34/30. What will this do to me in practice? have i gone to far? The intention was to replicate my existing lowest gear. Now I am panicking that I will have massive gaps in the gearing range. Help!

hodge68

As said in my post i run a 34/28, i do notice a gap that wasn't there on the 34/25. However its not a problem, just something ive noticed and worth it to get my large ass up the hills.

Bobbinogs

treaclepig wrote:

Sorry to jump in on this very interesting thread, but my post is sort of relevant.
Having ridden (and needed) a triple with a bottom gear of 30/26 I have just ordered a bike off Ribble and have gone for a compact double with a bottom gear of 34/30. What will this do to me in practice? have i gone to far? The intention was to replicate my existing lowest gear. Now I am panicking that I will have massive gaps in the gearing range. Help!

I wouldn't fret so. If you find the gaps too big or that you never use the bottom combo then you can simply change the cassette (might want to take a link out of the chain/shorten the b stop if dropping a long way, etc.). Relatively low cost all round. I have a couple of bikes with 9 speed standard doubles and run 13-28 without the gaps being too much of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I do much prefer a 13-23 (lovely on flattish routes) for the shorter range but I live near lots of hills and simply wouldn't get up some of them on a 39-23. I also run a 10 spd triple for long and very hilly routes and that is great (I am firmly in the camp of 'rather get up in any gear than walk').

MartinB2444

I'm 53 this month, started cycling about 6 months ago and, until then, had been pretty sedentary. My local rides are in the Peak District and very hilly so I was after a triple on as light a bike as I could get. However, when I discovered a 2011 model Cube GTC Race with £400 off I went for it even though it was a compact with a 34/28 bottom gear. Although I've been working quite hard on my fitness I'm definitely no hardened cyclist and my thighs are still skinny but I can get up every hill I need too including Curbar Gap.

The main disadvantage of a triple seems to be the number of times you need to change the front ring, which is a bit of a pain. Also, if you found you were being over faced up a hill and wanted to change to the granny ring you are likely to have a fully loaded drive train and wont be able to make the shift, so more planning ahead and a bit more to think about. A typical triple will give you 30/25 as a bottom gear which isn't going to be way easier than 34/28. The triple will have a much bigger gear than the compact for those down hill runs when you want to get up to 80km/hr. I'm quite happy to get my body low and enjoy a bit of spinning.

Chris James

MartinB2444 wrote:

The main disadvantage of a triple seems to be the number of times you need to change the front ring, which is a bit of a pain.

From my experience with triples and compacts then I would say the opposisite is true.

I find my normal cruising gears are on the big/big and small/small combinations for the compact, so a rolling road will encourage lots of front shifting.

My triple with a 42 middle chain ring will go up most things.

In fact that the excessive front shifting is the thing that annoys me most about compacts, more so than the larger gaps between gears (I grew up with 5 speed blocks, so am used to gaps!).

I think 16 teeth gap between chain rings on compacts is too much, and contributes to dropped chains. I don't recall anyone having chain catchers in the old days of 52/42 or 52/42/30 chainsets, although this may also be because people rode metal frames and were less worried about damage.

In summary, for me, both compacts and triples are OK. I think triples are more user friendly but have a touring aesthetic (which doesn't worry me).

keef66

For me the advantage of the triple is less front changing. I use the middle ring 90% of the time, and only drop into the granny ring for long and or steep climbs / strong headwinds, and up to the big ring for downhills / tailwinds.

Devon Lad

I have only ever had one bike, so I am perhaps not a great person to be comparing, however in my experience on club rides I find I can drop a lot of riders on fancy more expensive, lighter carbon bikes with compact chainsets and am left waiting at the top for them. I've been met with comments such as "it's only because you have a triple". :roll: If a triple makes everything so easy why don't they just go out and get one?

I have had absolutely no problems with my triple, I can always find a gear for every "occasion". As for the assumption that the granny cog never gets used, I find it really useful to spin up hills, at an albeit sluggish 10mph, or to recover on long climbs. Essentially I like the fact I know I have a "get out of jail free card" no matter what Devon throws at me even if I myself am definitely not a Contador or Andy Schleck.

Wouldn't trade my triple for anything but when i get better and fitter, or get a lighter bike, I may be tempted to get a compact as it seems to be the norm on most more expensive bikes. But I will always keep the triple in the shed for hillier days.

Rouge Penguin

Chris James wrote:

MartinB2444 wrote:

The main disadvantage of a triple seems to be the number of times you need to change the front ring, which is a bit of a pain.

From my experience with triples and compacts then I would say the opposisite is true.

I find my normal cruising gears are on the big/big and small/small combinations for the compact, so a rolling road will encourage lots of front shifting.

My triple with a 42 middle chain ring will go up most things.

In fact that the excessive front shifting is the thing that annoys me most about compacts, more so than the larger gaps between gears (I grew up with 5 speed blocks, so am used to gaps!).

I think 16 teeth gap between chain rings on compacts is too much, and contributes to dropped chains. I don't recall anyone having chain catchers in the old days of 52/42 or 52/42/30 chainsets, although this may also be because people rode metal frames and were less worried about damage.

In summary, for me, both compacts and triples are OK. I think triples are more user friendly but have a touring aesthetic (which doesn't worry me).

I might be missing something, but why would you be cruising on BigBig and SmallSmall?

Chris James

Because I like a gear of around 65-70 inches. At 85-90 rpm that equates to about 17mph.

For a compact 50/34 with 12/27 cassette this lies around the 50/19 or 34/13 area. For a triple this lies practically smack in the middle of cassette for my 42 tooth middle ring.

jameses

keef66 wrote:

For me the advantage of the triple is less front changing. I use the middle ring 90% of the time, and only drop into the granny ring for long and or steep climbs / strong headwinds, and up to the big ring for downhills / tailwinds.

+1

Devon Lad wrote:

however in my experience on club rides I find I can drop a lot of riders on fancy more expensive, lighter carbon bikes with compact chainsets and am left waiting at the top for them. I've been met with comments such as "it's only because you have a triple". :roll:

I've had the same experience! I really don't get the snobbish attitudes towards triples, or comfort oriented bikes either for that matter. But if it gives someone a feeling of moral superiority because they're in serious pain at the end of a long, hilly ride when I'm ready to go another 20, 30 miles on my Secteur triple, at least there's something positive they can take from the ride!

simon_e

nochekmate wrote:

Perceived disadvantages:
Granny Ring rarely used unless encountering serious gradients - thus additional weight for little usage.
Aesthetically some people don't like the appearance of them
Others argue that set-up may require more fettling to hit gears/changes sweetly
Association with perceived weakness of the rider

perceived weakness?!?

Come round my house and say that, yer big girl's blouse! That 200g of extra chainring would stop you enjoying your bike? Yeah, sure. You obviously don't ride a triple, and you have a bit of a problem with it. Perhaps it's chainring envy.


There are plenty of triple users that could ride you and me into the ground, the amazing Andy Wilkinson being one! I bet he doesn't lie awake worrying about what people think of his chainset.

I like my triple. The 39t is great for general riding, and I don't have the big gap between the 50 and 34 on a a compact, and where too often most people have to cross-chain it, riding big:big or small:small. Other people's aesthetics don't get me up hills, which is what gears are for, and I really don't care how many chainrings or gears anyone else wishes to use, that's up to them.

xpc316e

I have long been a fan of triples and have never had a problem with them, but they have been on mountain bikes and other cycles with relatively long chain stays.

I have just bought my first decent road bike, and it has a compact with a 30 tooth first gear on the cassette. The transmission is 10 speed Tiagra and I am utterly sold on it. My mate has bought a decent road bike with a triple on it; it has an eight speed cassette and runs Sora transmission. I set up the gears for him and found that on a road bike with its short stays, the chain runs at a sharper angle and frequently fouls the front changer in the more extreme gears. It means that for each chainwheel at the front he really only has a choice of four sweet, smooth-running sprockets at the rear. That results in twelve gears out of 24, and then when some of them are duplicated you aren't left with much.

My advice would be to go for a modern compact arrangement on a road bike, as you get a great spread of gears with a smooth transmission. Leave the triples for tourers and MTBs.

jim453

JamesEs wrote:

keef66 wrote:

For me the advantage of the triple is less front changing. I use the middle ring 90% of the time, and only drop into the granny ring for long and or steep climbs / strong headwinds, and up to the big ring for downhills / tailwinds.

+1

Devon Lad wrote:

however in my experience on club rides I find I can drop a lot of riders on fancy more expensive, lighter carbon bikes with compact chainsets and am left waiting at the top for them. I've been met with comments such as "it's only because you have a triple". :roll:

I've had the same experience! I really don't get the snobbish attitudes towards triples, or comfort oriented bikes either for that matter. But if it gives someone a feeling of moral superiority because they're in serious pain at the end of a long, hilly ride when I'm ready to go another 20, 30 miles on my Secteur triple, at least there's something positive they can take from the ride!

Totally agree with this. The basic problem here is that many people, even outwardly coherent and seemingly intelligent ones are, in actual fact, thick as pig s###. Whatever kind of transmission you have, if you're first up you're better, plain and simple.

Having said that, if I were buying a new bike now I'd get a compact.

jameses

xpc316e wrote:

My mate has bought a decent road bike with a triple on it; it has an eight speed cassette and runs Sora transmission. I set up the gears for him and found that on a road bike with its short stays, the chain runs at a sharper angle and frequently fouls the front changer in the more extreme gears. It means that for each chainwheel at the front he really only has a choice of four sweet, smooth-running sprockets at the rear. That results in twelve gears out of 24, and then when some of them are duplicated you aren't left with much.

Sounds like you haven't set the gears up quite right, then - I get a full range of sprockets on the middle ring, and a tiny amount of front mech rub on the big/big and small/small combinations, if I hit them by mistake! Not that it wasn't a bit of a pain to set it up, but it can be done.

Of course, there is a fair amount of overlap in the gearing, but compared to a double or compact I have lower gears for climbing, higher gears for descending and small steps between sprockets (current setup is a 52/42/30 with 9 speed 12-23 at the back). I think that's worth a few extra grams and the 'perceived weakness'!

robbo2011

But if you compare a 52/39/30 triple with a 50/34 compact, you will only have one lower gear for climbing. If you fittted a 11-28 cassette, a 34x28 is a very low gear, would you really need a lower one? And if you spin out on a 50/11 compact gear when descending, you'll be doing 40mph or so, not really an issue either.

In reality, I think the differences are being overplayed. As always, it comes down to the preferences of the rider.

slowondefy2

The lowest gain ratio on a compact with 34/25 is 2.7 (35.7 inches) whereas the lowest two gears on a triple (30/23 and 30/25) give ratios of 2.6 and 2.4 (or 34.3 and 31.5 inches).

So robbo is right, the triple only gives one/one and half gears lower than a compact, if using the same cassette.

So the benefits of a triple as far as this newbie sees it:
1) allows less range in the cassette and therefore smaller jumps between cogs (which then removes the advantage of having a lower lowest gear)
2) fewer chain ring changes required - several triple users have said they stay mainly in the middle ring for the majority of a ride
3) the jump between chain rings is less than on a compact
4) a slightly faster big ring
5) you get a slightly easier gear to get up that hill.

Benefits of a compact:
1) bike looks less like a mountain bike

reformedfatty

I prefer a compact purely because I dont have to worry about chainline issues, all the gears are available and thats it.

Taking it a step further, next bikes going to have an alfine

Chris James

robbo2011 wrote:

But if you compare a 52/39/30 triple with a 50/34 compact, you will only have one lower gear for climbing. If you fittted a 11-28 cassette, a 34x28 is a very low gear, would you really need a lower one? And if you spin out on a 50/11 compact gear when descending, you'll be doing 40mph or so, not really an issue either.

In reality, I think the differences are being overplayed. As always, it comes down to the preferences of the rider.

I agree as far as the gear range is concerned. I think the triple suits me because I found I was doing a lot of cross ringing on a compact and the 16 tooth front chain ring gap was too much.

If anything i found the 34 tooth chainring too low for practical use much of the time. It was like a triple without the (most useful) middle ring.

I like a triple with a 12-25 or 12-23 cassette. Yes, it is just a preference, but it is based on which i find more user friendly.

Incidentally, my 105 shifters (controlling a old Tiagra front mech) have a trim function which eliminates any rubbing, although when my mech is well setup there is none on the middle ring anyway.

simon_e

slowondefy2 wrote:

The lowest gain ratio on a compact with 34/25 is 2.7 (35.7 inches) whereas the lowest two gears on a triple (30/23 and 30/25) give ratios of 2.6 and 2.4 (or 34.3 and 31.5 inches).

So robbo is right, the triple only gives one/one and half gears lower than a compact, if using the same cassette.

So the benefits of a triple as far as this newbie sees it:
1) allows less range in the cassette and therefore smaller jumps between cogs (which then removes the advantage of having a lower lowest gear)
2) fewer chain ring changes required - several triple users have said they stay mainly in the middle ring for the majority of a ride
3) the jump between chain rings is less than on a compact
4) a slightly faster big ring
5) you get a slightly easier gear to get up that hill.

Benefits of a compact:
1) bike looks less like a mountain bike

Compacts were introduced to get pro riders to get up the steepest climbs in the Grand Tours but the benefits for mere mortals compared to a 39 or 42t inner ring are obvious. BTW in last year's Giro David Millar chose 11-36 with his 42t inner.

I have nothing against choosing compacts and don't want anyone to think they are an inferior choice. It is an alternative rather than a replacement. From my experience that middle ring is where I spent 90%+ of the time unless I'm training on the tri-bars or climbing a particularly steep hill. The lowest ratios aren't so different from those on a compact. For heavily laden touring over hilly terrain some would choose 48/38/26 and MTB cassette.

If I was looking for a double for hilly terrain I'd consider a compact or CX (typically 46/36) with wide range cassette e.g. 11-32 with MTB/long cage rear derailleur. Sheldon's calculator says this will give a range of 30 to 114" without the big jump across the front rings. It's just another way to skin the same cat - all these configurations are options to allow a wide range of gears, we are spoilt for choice these days, there's no right or wrong.

MartinB2444

With a 42 middle ring and a 12-23 cassette I would be in the granny ring quite frequently cycling around the Peak District.

The jist is that either works for people like me who need a bit of help getting up the hills. I was very concerned about whether I would be able to manage 34x28 up long steep hills when I did the comparison with my mtb gearing. Although I huff and puff my way up longer climbs I needn't have worried, the benefits of a light weight, stiff road bike can't be overstated. So I would now suggest to newcomers not to get too hung up over the choice between a compact or a triple, which ever you get you will soon adapt and think that what ever you went for is the bees knees

citrus_

Ill just make a quick point on this.

I bought my first road bike before last summer, and ended up with a triple. Its fine and I am happy with it, but I wish I had gone with a compact as it can be a pain to set the gears up, they often end up needing a little adjustment to have all of them accessible without the chain rubbing, and maybe a compact would overcome this.

Also, as has already been said, there really isnt that much of a difference between highest and lowest gears anyway, and I dont even think ive ever used the lowest possible gear.

Alibran

slowondefy2 wrote:

Benefits of a compact:
1) bike looks less like a mountain bike

700c skinny tyres and drop bars? I think it would take more than a triple chainset to make that look like a mountain bike.

As has already been said, I can access all the rear sprockets from the middle ring, and most of them from either big or small rings. I also spend most of my time on the middle ring (42 tooth), which suits me nicely. If I'm starting up a hill that I'm not familiar with and it looks pretty steep, I change to the granny ring before I run out of rear sprockets - I can always change up again if I find I don't need it.