Want to change from a double to a Triple

nanas1
nanas1 Posts: 50
edited December 2013 in Road general
All,
I currently have my bike set up with a Shimano Ultegra 6700 double crankset.
How easy and what would I need to change this to a triple crankset?
Is it simply a case of changing the crankset?

Please share you knowledge

Comments

  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    Probably need to change the shifters too = expensive.

    Put a different cassette on. I assume it has a 11-25 or 12-25, give a 12-27 a try. If that failes put a compact 50/36 on the front. You may also be able to change the 39t ring but that's just a guess...
  • Shifters, front mech, chainset, in some cases you need a rech mech too. Agreed that it's much cheaper to put a bigger range cassette on if you haven't done that already. Or as said swap the double for a compact.

    I run an Ultegra 6700 12-30 rear cassette.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Depending on what the OP has though - could need a new rear mech if it doesn't have the range from say a 25-12 to 30-11
  • Get rid of the double for a compact instead.

    Bigger range cassette may not be the best solution if you don't like the massive jump between each cog.
  • maddog 2
    maddog 2 Posts: 8,114
    triples are terrible. Don't do it.
    Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true! - Homer
  • cmhill79
    cmhill79 Posts: 138
    12-30 is the way to go. I run one on a 39/53 crank and find the lowest gear is roughly equal to or lower than my other bike that has a compact and a 12-25
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    maddog 2 wrote:
    triples are terrible. Don't do it.
    Triples are not at all terrible.

    Having said that if I had a double I would not change to a triple - too much hassle and cost. I'd be going compact if I needed some easier gears.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • I have a Ultegra 6503 triple on my (now) old road bike. It has 52/42/30 chain rings and 12-27 cassette. The bottom gear is virtually the same as my new road bike that has a 6700 compact drivetrain with 50-34 chainset and 12-30 cassette.

    However, if you want even lower gears for a tourer then triple is the only option. They are not rubbish but they do need careful setting up. Once they are set up correctly, they work just as well as a double.
    I have only two things to say to that; Bo***cks
  • cmhill79 wrote:
    12-30 is the way to go. I run one on a 39/53 crank and find the lowest gear is roughly equal to or lower than my other bike that has a compact and a 12-25

    The difference is there's less of a jump between each cog on the 12-25.
  • 30 / 25 on a triple is actually a higher gear than 34 / 30 on a compact.
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    maddog 2 wrote:
    triples are terrible. Don't do it.
    I've ridden doubles, triples and compacts, and very much prefer a triple over a compact. Compacts are fine if you ride either in flatlands or the Alps, but for UK hilly terrain they're not brilliant because of the big gaps between the front cogs
  • To the OP, post your front chainring sizes, rear cassette size and rear derailleur type (short or long) and you'll get some more detailed advice :-)

    usually these threads veer towards putting on the biggest rear cassette possible before shelling out for new shifters (£200+)

    Compact is normally fine for anything up to about 15-20% (for me, ymmv)
  • nanas1
    nanas1 Posts: 50
    Gents,
    I have a 12-28 cassette on the rear with a 172.5, 39/53 crankset
  • So what about switching to a 50/34 compact, and to a 11-28 cassette

    That would give you a lower gear of 34/28 but because you've got the 11T your top gear is actually higher than that on your double. Losing some range in the middle - of course.
  • FJS wrote:
    maddog 2 wrote:
    triples are terrible. Don't do it.
    I've ridden doubles, triples and compacts, and very much prefer a triple over a compact. Compacts are fine if you ride either in flatlands or the Alps, but for UK hilly terrain they're not brilliant because of the big gaps between the front cogs

    Nothing stopping you from replacing the 34t to a 36t or a 50t to a 46t.
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    edscoble wrote:
    FJS wrote:
    maddog 2 wrote:
    triples are terrible. Don't do it.
    I've ridden doubles, triples and compacts, and very much prefer a triple over a compact. Compacts are fine if you ride either in flatlands or the Alps, but for UK hilly terrain they're not brilliant because of the big gaps between the front cogs

    Nothing stopping you from replacing the 34t to a 36t or a 50t to a 46t.
    Which is still a 14 t difference. 10 on a triple (50-40-30) = very smooth changing gears on rolling and hilly terrain like most of the UK. And a 46 as biggest would be quite limited on the flat or downhill, and 36 as smallest hardly provides any benefit over a double (39). Sure, it's doable, and I do ride a compact on my winterbike, but I do find a triple far superior.
  • 46/11 give you around 29mph at 90rpm, pretty normal.

    50/11 give you, wait for it, 31mph.

    2mph difference.
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    Sure. For some that's negligible, for others that makes a difference, especially when riding/racing with people on a 53.
    People have different objectives on a bike. For me, personally, a 50/11 is already as low as I want to go, and for me personally, riding in the UK, I prefer my triple over my compact, for the reasons I gave. If others like their compact, great.
  • Everyone's riding is the same. How dare you imply differences!!!!!11
  • CPEX
    CPEX Posts: 11
    Another vote for compact
  • Jim C
    Jim C Posts: 333
    30 39 50 and a 12-25 cassette does give lots of usable gears on a bike for rolling terrain.
    My audax bike has this, been out on it this morning- on the rolling peak district hills its perfect. Fashion dictates otherwise with some of the people i ride with
    jc