triple chainset

Bustacapp

I've been struggling to get up a 14% gradient since I got my bike 3 weeks ago. Still can't make it. It has a 'normal' double chainset and the lowest ratio I can get is 39/26. I'm sure I'd do it on a MTB quite easily.

Did anyone hear that ex pro commentating on the Tour of Britain last night? He mentioned that he preferred a 42 front cog with a 19 rear for climbing!!! :shock:

rolf_f

I always find it interesting that it is socially acceptable to observe that an 11 tooth top cassette cog is too high a gear for normal folk but any suggestion that you might want a cassette cog larger than 25 is the talk of a wimp!

As far as I am concerned, if I start dropping much below 80 cadence on a hill then I'm no longer in the optimum gear for that climb. And if I don't have any lower gear, and this is happening often on a ride, then I am using the wrong cassette for that route.

nickel

Personally I love my compact coupled with a 12-25 cassette, no big gaps between ratios at the back and I find my high cadence suited to it. Only disadvantage is the big 16 tooth gap between the chainrings which means if you mistime front shifting you'll end up with a massive increase in cadence. 34x25 has seen me up some of UK's toughest climbs but if I did something like the Fred I think I'd stick an 11-28 cassette on.

karlth

Whereas even with 30x25 my cadence going up onto the pennine plateau up a series of 10% ramps on Saturday was pretty grim. Too many people like me being expected to somehow work with the sort of gearing that works for athletes. I OTOH was the kid at school who was shit at everything sporty, took 20 secs to do the 100m etc.

But we're used to having the piss ripped out of us for not being very good.

eta. - who's put a naughty word filter on here?

butcher of bakersfield

karlth wrote:

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.

Yeah, I kinda guessed this was probably the case. Just found it a bit odd as I thought the whole point of a triple was to have a bigger range of gears (at least at the lower end of the spectrum if nothing else). If my bike was any higher geared I'd have to get off and push at times. It's a real struggle once I get past 10% on the hillometre. Especially after a long day in the saddle.

karlth

The point of the triple is that you get closer gears whilst also having the increased range of a compact. A triple may go no lower (and if someone's stuck a MTB cassette on the back of a compact equipped bike, they'll have lower gears than you will with a standard triple and 25 large cog combination), but what you will have is closer spaced ratios. The irony here, to my mind, is that having close spaced ratios only really matters to the more talented and accomplished cyclists to whom being able to have exactly the cadence they want makes a significant difference. Yet triples are generally put on low end bikes, perpetuating the idea that they're primarily about having very low gears available. Probably they're cheaper than compacts. One advantage they do have over a compact is better chainlines and the absence of a big gap between front chainwheels - when you change the front ring on a compact you generally have to shift several cogs at the back as well to get a comfortable difference; with a triple I generally find a simple double-shift (up one at the front, down one at the back or vice versa) is adequate.

If you're struggling, consider changing the cassette. You will maintain the advantage over a compact inasmuch as you won't need such a large largest cog as them.

Bordersroadie

karlth wrote:

The point of the triple is that you get closer gears whilst also having the increased range of a compact.

I'd agree with you here, but go a little further and say that you gain advantages in both respects. Closer gears, yes, but at the same time an extra lower climbing gear or two over a compact. Whatever you can put on the back of a compact set-up you can also put on a triple, so you're always going to win on lowest gear potential.

karlth wrote:

One advantage they do have over a compact is better chainlines and the absence of a big gap between front chainwheels - when you change the front ring on a compact you generally have to shift several cogs at the back as well to get a comfortable difference; with a triple I generally find a simple double-shift (up one at the front, down one at the back or vice versa) is adequate.

I agree totally, you explain this perfectly. This is a big, big advantage (which I mentioned in my original post above) which for me makes any ride much more pleasurable and easy because I'm not constantly rattling up and down the front and rear chainrings/sprockets, trying to avoid cross-chaining because on a compact I often seem to want the ratio which corresponds with big/big or small/small.

karlth wrote:

The irony here, to my mind, is that having close spaced ratios only really matters to the more talented and accomplished cyclists to whom being able to have exactly the cadence they want makes a significant difference.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, and I would disagree. Maintenance of a good cadence applies to any cyclist, surely? I've been cycling for 40 years, I'm a keen (fairly typical?) high-mileage commuter/mamil/strava bagger/sportive rider and I personally find the same advantage in closer ratios as a "more talented accomplished" cyclist in respect of maintaining a good cadence.

At the end of the day, to the average rider if you do a lot of proper hilly riding, having a triple is a bit of a no-brainer.

StillGoing

Without saying what cassette you have on the back and not knowing what cassette the compact riders had, how can you be sure fitness wasn't an issue? Just because a rider might look weedy doesn't mean they don't have a better power to weight ratio than you.Most compacts come with a 11-26 or 11-25 cassette, what's on your triple? Of course they could have fitted a bigger rear cassette and a long rear dérailleur. When that old boy comes by on his Brompton whistling away it has nothing to do with cassette sizes; he's just more used to going up hills than you are.

rolf_f

Bordersroadie wrote:

At the end of the day, to the average rider if you do a lot of proper hilly riding, having a triple is a bit of a no-brainer.

I don't think that's fair - more fair to call a triple a sensible option and it's nice to see them being regarded as such.

I'd agree over the cadence thing - I've been far more conscious of crossed chains since I started focussing on improving my cadence so in that respect, a triple would be a benefit. But on the other hand, for the convenience of the better front shifts, I think the weight penalty is a step too far. Yorkshire and the Lake District have been fine for me on a compact with 34-29 as a low gear with the one big exception being on the Fred. I'm not sure there how much lower I'd have needed to go to make it up Hardknott without walking but for barely more than 5 minutes lost time in 2 years of compact riding I don't think that's a good enough call to switch to a triple.

butcher of bakersfield

philthy3 wrote:

Without saying what cassette you have on the back and not knowing what cassette the compact riders had, how can you be sure fitness wasn't an issue? Just because a rider might look weedy doesn't mean they don't have a better power to weight ratio than you.Most compacts come with a 11-26 or 11-25 cassette, what's on your triple? Of course they could have fitted a bigger rear cassette and a long rear dérailleur. When that old boy comes by on his Brompton whistling away it has nothing to do with cassette sizes; he's just more used to going up hills than you are.

My power to weight is awful - I'm more rugby physique with additional pies than your average cyclist - so I expect a lot of people to be quicker than me on the climbs. However I'm talking about people travelling the exact same speed as me, but with a noticeably higher pedalling cadence. Doesn't matter how fit you are, the only thing that makes that possible is lower gearing. Or your chain snapping...

karlth

Has anyone calculated what difference in time the "weight penalty" of a triple would be over say 100 miles? My guess is about 30 seconds. I could be way off, but I'd be surprised if it were very much.

Bustacapp

karlth wrote:

Has anyone calculated what difference in time the "weight penalty" of a triple would be over say 100 miles? My guess is about 30 seconds. I could be way off, but I'd be surprised if it were very much.

What about that extra water bottle or if you forgot to have a poo before the ride? It all adds up!

rolf_f

karlth wrote:

Has anyone calculated what difference in time the "weight penalty" of a triple would be over say 100 miles? My guess is about 30 seconds. I could be way off, but I'd be surprised if it were very much.

Probably not a vast amount - tbh, even the time penalty of me using my heavy tourer over a carbon bike isn't a vast amount but I think that the weight has a bigger impact on overall tiredness than actual time which doesn't seem entirely logical so is probably wrong!

That said though, you can't use the 'this bit of extra weight won't make a difference' all the time or you end up with a BSO. No one component really matters but you have to draw a line somewhere.

karlth

Yeah - all else being equal. But if you're more able to maintain the required cadence with a triple, might that slightly outweigh the weight penalty, such as it is?

rolf_f

karlth wrote:

Yeah - all else being equal. But if you're more able to maintain the required cadence with a triple, might that slightly outweigh the weight penalty, such as it is?

Oh yes - I'd say that the main thing is to achieve the right cadence - if you can do that across your route without much compromise then the solution must be a good one. You should be able to optimise gearing for almost any route with a triple, a medium cage rear mech and a variety of cassettes.

It just depends how often you are needing that extra bit of range.

karlth

Rolf F wrote:

karlth wrote:

Yeah - all else being equal. But if you're more able to maintain the required cadence with a triple, might that slightly outweigh the weight penalty, such as it is?

Oh yes - I'd say that the main thing is to achieve the right cadence - if you can do that across your route without much compromise then the solution must be a good one. You should be able to optimise gearing for almost any route with a triple, a medium cage rear mech and a variety of cassettes.

It just depends how often you are needing that extra bit of range.

Around here? All the time.

Bordersroadie

Rolf F wrote:

Bordersroadie wrote:

At the end of the day, to the average rider if you do a lot of proper hilly riding, having a triple is a bit of a no-brainer.

I don't think that's fair - more fair to call a triple a sensible option and it's nice to see them being regarded as such.

I'd agree over the cadence thing - I've been far more conscious of crossed chains since I started focussing on improving my cadence so in that respect, a triple would be a benefit. But on the other hand, for the convenience of the better front shifts, I think the weight penalty is a step too far. Yorkshire and the Lake District have been fine for me on a compact with 34-29 as a low gear with the one big exception being on the Fred. I'm not sure there how much lower I'd have needed to go to make it up Hardknott without walking but for barely more than 5 minutes lost time in 2 years of compact riding I don't think that's a good enough call to switch to a triple.

Fair comment, a "sensible option" is a better description.

I've just checked some verified actual weights and for a 105 5700 crankset with both 172.5 arms they are as follows
Compact: 725g
Triple: 855g

So the additional weight is 130g.

Your 34-29 is not far off my lowest 30-28, but having used a triple for a few thousand miles now, I'd sooner have the benefits of easier and less frequent changing and smaller cadence changes than save the 130g. It's neither here nor there compared to the weight of bike plus rider, and would make no difference over even a long ride, but let's not get into the weight weenie discussion!

Sounds like you ride similar terrain to me. My main aim is to be as good as I can be at climbing so I almost always climb hilly routes. I average 80 to 85 feet per mile elevation gain over a typical year. On the steep climbs, which maybe undulate from 10% to 15% with bits at over 25%, the triple is a great thing to have because I have exactly the spread of ratios I need. A compact doesn't give me this.

chorlton chimp

Interesting comments on this thread. My main bike is triple equipped with 12-25 at the back and I find myself doing most of my riding on the middle ring. I have recently bought a Genesis cdf with a Sora 12-25 compact as a commuter/light off roader - I like the bike but I find I am always running extreme chain lines and doing an awful lot more front ring shifting. The triple is far easier to ride for me and I can't imagine getting up anything steep on the Genesis. I can forsee a 2013 Sora rear mech and a 12-30 cassette being purchased in the not too distant future.

StillGoing

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Without saying what cassette you have on the back and not knowing what cassette the compact riders had, how can you be sure fitness wasn't an issue? Just because a rider might look weedy doesn't mean they don't have a better power to weight ratio than you.Most compacts come with a 11-26 or 11-25 cassette, what's on your triple? Of course they could have fitted a bigger rear cassette and a long rear dérailleur. When that old boy comes by on his Brompton whistling away it has nothing to do with cassette sizes; he's just more used to going up hills than you are.

My power to weight is awful - I'm more rugby physique with additional pies than your average cyclist - so I expect a lot of people to be quicker than me on the climbs. However I'm talking about people travelling the exact same speed as me, but with a noticeably higher pedalling cadence. Doesn't matter how fit you are, the only thing that makes that possible is lower gearing. Or your chain snapping...

Yes but, a fitter rider could easily spin a higher cadence than you using higher gears. I struggle with hills and like to spin a high cadence. My average is around 90-94 rpm. As soon as I hit hills with percentages in double figures my cadence drops until I have no more gears to rescue me and have to struggle with what I have, whereas people I ride with can still be spinning a high cadence with a few sprockets to go.

Bordersroadie

chorlton chimp wrote:

Interesting comments on this thread. My main bike is triple equipped with 12-25 at the back and I find myself doing most of my riding on the middle ring. I have recently bought a Genesis cdf with a Sora 12-25 compact as a commuter/light off roader - I like the bike but I find I am always running extreme chain lines and doing an awful lot more front ring shifting. The triple is far easier to ride for me and I can't imagine getting up anything steep on the Genesis. I can forsee a 2013 Sora rear mech and a 12-30 cassette being purchased in the not too distant future.

You've hit the nail on the head - good to hear a similar experience to my own. I've been trying to say that these are real and significant drawbacks of compacts but you can only know this if you actually live with and properly experience both systems.

On the speed thing, my winter bike feels (and often is, according to many of my logged rides) quicker than my summer bike even though it's a kilo heavier, because it runs 25c gators not 23c gators - the 25c have lower rolling drag on our rough roads.

Both are on a 5703 triple.

My point? It puts in perspective the 130g we were talking about. . .

StillGoing

Surely the weight is swings and roundabouts; it may add to the weight going uphill, but it also has the same effect going down.

butcher of bakersfield

philthy3 wrote:

Yes but, a fitter rider could easily spin a higher cadence than you using higher gears.

Of course they could. But they couldn't do it and maintain the same speed as I. That's impossible.

...unless they have lower gearing.

Anyway, that reminds me ... I'm off to count my gears.

chorlton chimp

I should caveat my post with the following info. I have only been road riding 11 months and am a relative newbie and at 16 - 16.5 st a bit of a porker (why did they make beer and curry SO damn tasty?) but I feel a lot more confident on the Secteur with the triple.

Were I lighter and fitter I think a 10sp compact would probably do the job but running 9sp (it was a financial decision) the triple gives me closer ratios on 12-25 and a decent lower gear. The extra .5lb weight on the bike is no issue for me (see above), I would have to lose a whole load of lard to start spending money on a significently lighter bike.

If, like me, you ride on generally flat terrain the drawback on the triple setup is that it can make you a little lazy on gear selection as the middle ring does the job most of the time and it's easy to sit there. Once you realise that at 25kph plus you can shift up at the front and go faster for the same effort it's great!

But then, don't pros always ride doubles?

StillGoing

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Yes but, a fitter rider could easily spin a higher cadence than you using higher gears.

Of course they could. But they couldn't do it and maintain the same speed as I. That's impossible.

...unless they have lower gearing.

Anyway, that reminds me ... I'm off to count my gears.

You didn't say they were doing the same speed as you in your original post.

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)?

rolf_f

Bordersroadie wrote:

I've just checked some verified actual weights and for a 105 5700 crankset with both 172.5 arms they are as follows
Compact: 725g
Triple: 855g

So the additional weight is 130g.

Your 34-29 is not far off my lowest 30-28, but having used a triple for a few thousand miles now, I'd sooner have the benefits of easier and less frequent changing and smaller cadence changes than save the 130g.

I think it does come down to taste. To be fair, 130g is an amount that some people will pay a lot of money to save but then will they ever notice it?! But that said, I'd quite like to be able to take that weight of my posh bike for negative money!

As for the front changes - if I was less disorganised in my shifting I'd have a better case against that argument. If you double shift both mechs at the same time, you don't actually incur any additional shifts - I suspect it makes very little difference if you always know what cogs you are in and what to do for the next shift. However, I'm not good at that and still end up finding myself with crossed chains. I probably need to try to train myself to be less crap at shifting but I'd say that I've certainly noticed how often people are running crossed chains lately.

Incidentally, I have a triple tourer - that runs 48, 38, 28 but normally I never use the 28. The lowest gear on the middle ring irrc is equivalent to 34-25 but obviously the top end is a bit slower. I certainly do do fewer front shifts on that one.

Chris James

Rolf, I've experience of both systems too. Where I live (Huddersfield) the compact isn't too bad as you tend to be going uphill (small ring) or downhill (large ring) most of the time. My chainset is a 48/36 but i dare say a 50/34 is similar, just with a bigger gap.

There is very little flat around here.

When I visit my parents in Chester, or my in laws in Northumberland, then the rolling terrain there means that I am forever shifting the front rings of a compact chainset. It drives me mad. Whereas I can stick the triple in the 42 tooth midle ring all day.

Sprool

Another kirklees dweller here, I'm in Holmfirth, and just got my first road bike for may years. I went with a triple (50, 39, 30) and sram 11/28 on the back. Theres some long haul climbs round here, everywhere and the small crank ring allows me to pace myself up the hills. Having been used to a very low gearing MTB I'm glad I went for the triple. Middle ring works great for most flats and gentle inclines, big ring for downhill gradients. I'd rather have the emphasis on the low gear help as I'm still a beginner and not very fit.

butcher of bakersfield

philthy3 wrote:

You didn't say they were doing the same speed as you in your original post.

No. But if it wasn't clear enough in the first post, I did explicitly state it several times since, purely for your benefit

StillGoing

Ahh, my mistake.

karlth

I'm quite chuffed today having got to work at an average of 15.6mph. I've long not had to use the granny ring, but this is one of the first times there's been no point at which I felt that I could have used it.