triple chainset

radiation man

im i the only person left who uses the following gears on a road bike front chainset shimano 50-39-30
rear cassette sram pg 950 9 speed 12-26

Bordersroadie

No, there's plenty of us who don't poo-poo the idea of a "granny ring" (those that do so proudly ride around on their 4-teeth more 34 compact ring ).

I ride only on hilly routes so a triple is perfect for me personally, 50/39/30 with 11-28 means I have effectively a normal chainset (ie 50/39) with a whole extra set of ratios for steep sustained climbing.

As an ex-compact chainset rider, other advantages of a triple over a compact I've found are

# No more seeming to always be wanting "small/small" or "big/big" and thus no more needing to constantly be skipping from one front chainring to the other to avoid cross-chaining. A compact makes the temptation to cross-chain very high and I notice a lot of compact riders doing so.

# A set of gears on the 39 ring that mean, in the real world, that I make far far fewer front ring changes than with a compact. On rolling terrain I can seem to stay in the 39 for a lot of the time.

# Much smoother front ring changes due to not having the big leap from 50 to 34 and back. 50 to 39 to 30 is significantly easier and less stressful on the chain/chainring teeth.

# A much bigger and closer-ratio set of climbing gears for long steep climbs. The lowest may be similar to a compact but the gaps tend to be closer.

# A chainring (the 39) that allows all 10 gears to be used without cross-chaining or chainrub on an adjacent chainring is a big plus that a compact doesn't offer.

Of course for those that don't live in a proper hilly area and/or are far too macho to let anyone see them with (gasp) three chainrings, then a standard double or compact is fine.

Ride hard

Triples are classed as a bit whimpy by hardcore roadies because of aesthetics and the fact you can get lower gear ratios from the granny ring, but to be honest, I wouldn't worry about it. If you're riding, enjoying it and its helping you to reach your goals then who cares.

woolwich

There must be a market for triples or Campag would not have released a new updated range.

They make huge sense in the right application. Anywhere that smoothness and efficiency matter more than outright weight, such as touring and ultra-distance events. I adore my old 9spd triple tiagra set-up and it's landrover low gearing when the need arises.

I like the simplicity of a compact set up on other bikes, horses for courses.

StillGoing

A small minority of riders will pooh pooh anything that isn't a double, so compact and triple chainset users both get it. Not everyone has lead a life that allows them to climb hills using a 39/23 combination and some of us still struggle with compact and triple chainsets. Use whatever makes your ride enjoyable and ignore anyone who thinks you're a whimp for having to use a triple or a compact.

secretsam

radiation man wrote:

im i the only person left who uses the following gears on a road bike front chainset shimano 50-39-30
rear cassette sram pg 950 9 speed 12-26

No, I've got exactly the same set up

Some would say we're both pansies

Frankly, "meh" to them

keef66

My one and only all year round bike has a 50/39/30 chainset and 12-25 10 speed cassette (and mudguards, long drop brakes and 25mm tyres). I find I spend about 95% of my time in the 39 chainring, so the triple appeals to my lazy side. I think with a compact I'd be doing a lot more front changing, but I don't know, I've not tried one properly.

I don't worry about other people's opinions. More recent additions include a lovely honey B17 special, and on occasions a Carradice Barley saddlebag

EarlyGo

Both my bikes are triples. I recently received some 'granny ring' banter from a couple of clubmates who ride compacts. On checking their gearing I pointed out that one guy had a 12-32 tooth rear cassette and the other a 11-28 rear cassette. ie; one guy actually had lower gearing than my triple and the other approximately the same! Of course I have the advantage of having all the intermediate gears offered by a triple which allows me to maintain my cadence throughout a ride. To me this is far more important than the extra 250g that I carry around due to the extra chainring.

Regards, EarlyGo

greasedscotsman

radiation man wrote:

im i the only person left who uses the following gears...

Nope. Here's my Spesh SL with Dura Ace kit, 53/39/30 and a 11-23 on the back!

karlth

I've got one - mine's one of those Decathlon ones - it's a Sport 1 (now discontinued) with a fork from the successor, the Triban 3, owing to the fact I bent the original fork. Kudos to Decathlon on this - they ordered a replacement like for like, found it was out of stock and to recompense me for the inconvenience let me have the carbon Triban 3 fork at cost - £50. Does mean it's a bit back heavy when I'm using it for work with a bag on the back, mind. But I digress; it means I have 50/39/30 x 12-25 and I don't find there are any gears I'm missing. North Derbyshire and Sheffield so there are places I value that 30 - not least when I mucked up the rear indexing and lost the 25 the other week. Biggest problem is losing the macho "we didn't have 30 tooth chainwheels when I were a lad" and trying to avoid using it for no reason except pride. The other thing we did have when I were a lad were walks up some of the steeper hills. I agree with EarlyGo about the comparison with a compact, and would suggest that "Anywhere that smoothness and efficiency matter more than outright weight" is actually "95% of road cycling". I don't have to do a lot of front shifting, nor use cross-chained combinations. Unlike some others though, I don't find I can use all the rear cogs with the middle ring without chain rub - the top two (of eight) aren't really accessible - but that may be the slightly ropey trim feature on my shifters - by the time I'd need those I'm on the big ring anyway so it's no loss. I prefer to have 39x25 readily available.

Graydawg

Love my triple on the Triban. Still try to avoid the granny ring but it's nice to have when spinning up a mountain and you need to keep that cadence high. Also watch out for cross chaining but generally IMHO unless you're a weight weenie, then the triple is just as good as a double.

And if you are a weight weenie, it's cheaper to lose a few lbs off the beer belly than it is to upgrade to a compact!

Bustacapp

If your lowest front chainring is less than 39 then you are pure scum.

Graydawg

do not feed the troll!

JamesB5446

Since Campag started making triples again (they have soul, don't you know) I can kinda see where you little girly men are coming from.

On a tourer I'd probably have one so as not to knacker my knees up too bad.

karlth

JamesB5446 wrote:

Since Campag started making triples again (they have soul, don't you know) I can kinda see where you little girly men are coming from.

On a tourer I'd probably have one so as not to knacker my knees up too bad.

Cleethorpes. Says it all. Flat as a pancake.

JamesB5446

Ever heard of the Wolds?

karlth

JamesB5446 wrote:

Ever heard of the Wolds?

Mere pimples.

JamesB5446

Steep ones though.

I did the C2C the other week and managed Hartside and a few short 15-19% hills in Weardale on 39:25.

If I was riding in the Alps or Pyrenees where the climbs are much, much longer I'd certainly consider lower gears. I was kinda regretting not having a compact after the C2C.

secretsam

JamesB5446 wrote:

Steep ones though.

I did the C2C the other week and managed Hartside and a few short 15-19% hills in Weardale on 39:25.

If I was riding in the Alps or Pyrenees where the climbs are much, much longer I'd certainly consider lower gears. I was kinda regretting not having a compact after the C2C.

Bet your knees regret it, too

karlth

JamesB5446 wrote:

Steep ones though.

I did the C2C the other week and managed Hartside and a few short 15-19% hills in Weardale on 39:25.

If I was riding in the Alps or Pyrenees where the climbs are much, much longer I'd certainly consider lower gears. I was kinda regretting not having a compact after the C2C.

I daresay I could grind up a 19% on the 39x25, but it's a lot more comfortable on the 30x25. Rather depends how long it is, of course. It's one thing to pull up a 50 yard 19% in a given gear, but dragging all the way up Winnats in it is a different proposition.

It's simple maths really - as someone has said, if you never drop below 10mph on a climb then you'll be fine on standard double gearing. If you climb some steep hills at 5-6mph, like I do, then you're going to be pedalling very slowly unless you have lower gears. If you're happy doing that, then fine. I'm not.

matt@theforce

I have a triple & love it, I also fitted an 11-28 cassette to the rear to make it lower still.

I don't care what people think, I'm able to climb anything around the Peak District (allbeit slowely) but I get there and enjoy it and that's what its all about.

karlth

matt@theforce wrote:

I have a triple & love it, I also fitted an 11-28 cassette to the rear to make it lower still.

I don't care what people think, I'm able to climb anything around the Peak District (allbeit slowely) but I get there and enjoy it and that's what its all about.

I think around here we have some of the steepest - if generally short - and most frequent - hills around. It's not so much how big they are than the fact that you're always either going up one or going down one. I've got a simple 18 mile circuit planned for me and my brother in law tomorrow - it's 18 miles and has 1500' of climbing in it. It's one thing to grind up steep slopes in a stiff gear; it's another to do it when such grinding would be half the distance and well over half of the time. Having said that, I only expect to have to use the granny climbing out of Holymoorside east towards Chesterfield - but I have a feeling I'll be very glad of it as I hit that sheer wall of tarmac, and at least it's there if I need it at any other point.

Redsteveb

Have a look at SRAM Apex...I'm a lousy climber but managed some biggish cols in the Massif Central last month. Has a couple of nice low climbing gears without the hassle and weight usually associated with a tripple...

This is one I grinded my way up and over on the way to the Puy de Dome which was closed when we got there

StillGoing

SRAM do Wifli rear derailleurs now with all their groupsets that allow the rider to fit 11-32 cassettes. There may be bigger options too.

kernel_gadaffi

Due to the problems I have with my back and prosthetic leg, I have an 11-28 on the back and a 50-39-24 on the front, it suits me for the time being till I get some fitness built up, then I'll probably use this bike for the winter and get something better for the summer, that's if we ever have another one judging on how good this summer has been :roll:

JamesB5446

SecretSam wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

Steep ones though.

I did the C2C the other week and managed Hartside and a few short 15-19% hills in Weardale on 39:25.

If I was riding in the Alps or Pyrenees where the climbs are much, much longer I'd certainly consider lower gears. I was kinda regretting not having a compact after the C2C.

Bet your knees regret it, too

Oh yes, walking that evening was a little stiff.

karlth wrote:

I daresay I could grind up a 19% on the 39x25, but it's a lot more comfortable on the 30x25. Rather depends how long it is, of course. It's one thing to pull up a 50 yard 19% in a given gear, but dragging all the way up Winnats in it is a different proposition.

It's simple maths really - as someone has said, if you never drop below 10mph on a climb then you'll be fine on standard double gearing. If you climb some steep hills at 5-6mph, like I do, then you're going to be pedalling very slowly unless you have lower gears. If you're happy doing that, then fine. I'm not.

Indeed.

butcher of bakersfield

Ride hard wrote:

Triples are classed as a bit whimpy by hardcore roadies because of aesthetics and the fact you can get lower gear ratios from the granny ring...

I always thought this was the whole point. I'm relatively new to road riding (though not to riding) and I've been finding my triple chainset a bit of a struggle on some of the local hills (lot of 10, 15, 20 percenters of varying lengths, one after the other). And so I've been riding around thinking surely I can't be that terrible a climber (I'm not a great climber...I'm, er, bulky...but I'm not unfit either). People are trying to tell me this setup is ideal for touring (something cited from a review of my bike) and yet I'm struggling to drag myself up these hills!

Then I entered a sportive type event, and I realised as I pushed hard up hills in my lowest gear, clambering out of the saddle to get the leverage down, that other people with huge compact chainsets are spinning away like they're on MTBs. What's the deal with that?? Have I been cheated?

To add insult to injury, I'm spinning away down hills, and there's guys calmly pushing out a super low cadence at some seriously high speeds. I'm supposed to have all that luxury. I have the extra weight to prove it. I feel conned

So is it really all about closer gear ratios rather than gaining extremes at the two ends of the spectrum (which from my limited experience appears to be perfectly possible from a compact chainset)?

rubyrider

I wish I had a triple!

I've found it a shock going from my MTB to a road bike with a compact. Hills are suddenly much tougher.

StillGoing

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

Ride hard wrote:

Triples are classed as a bit whimpy by hardcore roadies because of aesthetics and the fact you can get lower gear ratios from the granny ring...

I always thought this was the whole point. I'm relatively new to road riding (though not to riding) and I've been finding my triple chainset a bit of a struggle on some of the local hills (lot of 10, 15, 20 percenters of varying lengths, one after the other). And so I've been riding around thinking surely I can't be that terrible a climber (I'm not a great climber...I'm, er, bulky...but I'm not unfit either). People are trying to tell me this setup is ideal for touring (something cited from a review of my bike) and yet I'm struggling to drag myself up these hills!

Then I entered a sportive type event, and I realised as I pushed hard up hills in my lowest gear, clambering out of the saddle to get the leverage down, that other people with huge compact chainsets are spinning away like they're on MTBs. What's the deal with that?? Have I been cheated?

To add insult to injury, I'm spinning away down hills, and there's guys calmly pushing out a super low cadence at some seriously high speeds. I'm supposed to have all that luxury. I have the extra weight to prove it. I feel conned

So is it really all about closer gear ratios rather than gaining extremes at the two ends of the spectrum (which from my limited experience appears to be perfectly possible from a compact chainset)?

No, they're just fitter than you having a better power to weight ratio. If you're struggling in the lowest gear on your triple, a compact isn't going to be easier. A compact has an inner ring of 34 teeth, a triple usually has an inner ring of 30 teeth. If you fit an 11-28 cassette to both, the triple is going to have the easier gear ratios at the bottom of the range and make maintaining a high cadence more possible.

butcher of bakersfield

philthy3 wrote:

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

I realised as I pushed hard up hills in my lowest gear, clambering out of the saddle to get the leverage down, that other people with huge compact chainsets are spinning away like they're on MTBs. What's the deal with that?? Have I been cheated?

No, they're just fitter than you having a better power to weight ratio. If you're struggling in the lowest gear on your triple, a compact isn't going to be easier. A compact has an inner ring of 34 teeth, a triple usually has an inner ring of 30 teeth. If you fit an 11-28 cassette to both, the triple is going to have the easier gear ratios at the bottom of the range and make maintaining a high cadence more possible.

Eh, no. They were spinning away at a much higher cadence, despite me being in my lowest gear, yet maintaining the same speed as myself. That has nothing to do with fitness.

They had a compact chainset, and they had lower gearing. I noticed this with a few people.

karlth

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

I realised as I pushed hard up hills in my lowest gear, clambering out of the saddle to get the leverage down, that other people with huge compact chainsets are spinning away like they're on MTBs. What's the deal with that?? Have I been cheated?

No, they're just fitter than you having a better power to weight ratio. If you're struggling in the lowest gear on your triple, a compact isn't going to be easier. A compact has an inner ring of 34 teeth, a triple usually has an inner ring of 30 teeth. If you fit an 11-28 cassette to both, the triple is going to have the easier gear ratios at the bottom of the range and make maintaining a high cadence more possible.

Eh, no. They were spinning away at a much higher cadence, despite me being in my lowest gear, yet maintaining the same speed as myself. That has nothing to do with fitness.

They had a compact chainset, and they had lower gearing. I noticed this with a few people.

They must have a much larger biggest cog on the back than you do. A lot of triples are equipped with a 25 largest cog; some compacts are partnered with much bigger back cogs.