to triple or not?

ianbar

i have always struggled up climbs I'm heavier ten average and could do with losing weight if i was honest. my mate has got a secteur recently...a triple, he is not trouncing me up every hill!! i run a compact 105. 11-28 cassette. now he has said i should go for a triple, even of the day its about making it easier etc and enjoying. now in back of my mind i think i feel i am cheating myself by getting such radical gearing to solve a weight and fitness issue! at the same time though i like my food and don't really want to stop eating everything under the sound that i like either. i had thought a half way measure might be to fit a larger cassette 11-32, so at least i would have what would feel like an extra gear.

sorry this has ended up being me talking to myself! but any thoughts on changing to a triple are welcome.

slowbike

A triple doesn't instantly solve issues.

It takes a specific amount of effort to go up a hill at a set speed - no amount of gear changing will sort that. Having lower gears will allow you to ride up the hills more slowly but more easily or at the same speed but at a higher cadence at the same effort level as now.

Getting easier gears isn't cheating though - it could be entirely sensible if you're struggling to get up any hill and hence avoid them.

Changing from a double to a triple is a big change though - sure a 30/28 will get you spinning more, but could you achieve something similar for less? Say (as you said) a 34/32 or just a 34/30.

The answer depends on how much you want to get better - ie lose weight - if you don't want to lose weight then IMHO you may as well just go for the easiest gearing you can, if you do then you may not want to spend the money on converting a bike for a short term gain.

FWIW, I have 2 bikes with triples (one mountain bike), 1 with a compact and one with a standard double. Each is used for a different purpose and matched with cassettes to suit.

ianbar

yeah that is all a good point. i do want to be faster up hill not just easier. i was intending on upgrading to the 11spd 105 anyway i could get that with a larger cassette maybe just give me that little bit more to fall back on

Jules Winnfield

I'm going to throw something out there that will really cause a stink and make me public enemy number 1.....

Triple chainsets should be banned on road bikes and Rule #5 should be enforced.

There. I said it.

ai_1

If you want/need a smaller gear to get up steep hills because you're forced to use a lower cadence than you would like now, then go for it. Unless the cadence is preventing you from working efficiently it's unlikely you'll get faster but you will find it easier. I've had a 50/39/39 triple for a few years which I used mostly with a 12-27 cassette (9 speed). It was great for getting up long steep hills, many of which I really would have stuggled on with a typical compact setup. I'd also used it, in it's original configuration with a 11-32 cassette to go up 25% gradients without collapsing, although I was barely moving! (It was a Specialised Tricross Speed Triple which were specified with a long cage MTB rear derailleur to allow a massive gear range). Great bike for my purposes and I'm still using it as a second bike now.
This year I bought a proper road bike with compact chainrings which is fitted with an 11-28 cassette. On all but one hill I don't miss the triple, because I'm a stronger rider now. There is one hill with a nasty 18% stretch near the top where I've wished for the extra bit of gearing!

However, current compact groupsets with 10 or 11 sprockets and allowing very wide range cassettes with sprockets of 30 or 32 teeth make the triple less attractive than it was. The advantage was a wide gear range without massive gaps between gears. Now a compact can do nearly as good a job. A compact with a 30t sprocket gets you nearly as small a gear as my triple with a 27t. There's only about a 2% difference - not worth worrying about. Whereas a 32t sprocket will beat most triples. The availability of 10 and 11 speed groupsets also means the gaps on te cassette are still reasonable even with such big ranges.

I wouldn't put you off a triple. They work great. I've had no trouble with mine. However there are fewer options if you're looking for a new bike sold with a triple. If you're modifying your existing bike which already has a decent compact you may be able to just change the cassette or the cassette and de-railleur.

@Jules
yes and you only said it to cause trouble so aside from this comment I will be ignoring you...

kajjal

It depends on what you feel you need. A triple and a wider range cassette would give you an easier time until you lose weight and get your fitness up. A tiagra 12-30 cassette is only £13.00 which gives a little more help and if your rear mech is compatible you can fit a MTB rear cassette which would help a lot more. A triple would help you out but is more expensive as you need to change the chainset and the shifter.

Once you get fitter and lose weight this will become a lot less of a problem. I used to drag my self up hills on my compact with a 12-30 cassette. Now I rarely use the bottom few gears. Keep going you will get there.

ianbar

i think generally the responses are telling me to train harder and not have a triple...i don't really want one. i suppose if i was having a touring bike i would but thats not what i have or want. i may hold out for changing to 11 spd and put a 30t cassette on so i get a good range. that might not be for a while so i might have to just get the training in now and get my ass in shape!!

simon_masterson

The triple chainset actually makes a lot of sense for many road cyclists; and the main reason why they aren't more common is fashion - though despite what The Rules may say (bad jokes go away when people stop telling them!), triples have been used at Grand Tour level; and they are much lighter than they used to be.

With a triple, you get the full range of the middle ring, and the top and bottom ranges of the outer and inner rings respectively. Assuming that you're using a standard triple (53/39/30) and a 12-28 cassette, the middle ring will be fine for most of the time, and then you have extra low gears and extra high gears. Using a triple also allows you to use a closer range cassette if you find yourself struggling less. The compact chainset may have revolutionised amateur road cycling, but it was made for racing - for high cadence climbing.

keezx

Jules Winnfield wrote:

I'm going to throw something out there that will really cause a stink and make me public enemy number 1.....

Triple chainsets should be banned on road bikes and Rule #5 should be enforced.

There. I said it.

Agree.
Compacts are for bikesnobs who want to keep up the appearence of a real racer but are to weak to pull a real gear.
Triples are for intelligent people who choose their own gears and don't give a damn about rules.

charlie_potatoes

ianbar wrote:

at the same time though i like my food and don't really want to stop eating everything

I think that this is the issue that you need to address.

desweller

I'm a big fan of triples (I think you should select your bike components to suit yourself, but apparently that's a controversial view); having said that I'm not sure I'd shell out a couple of hundred to make the switch if I already had a double or compact setup.

kingrollo

2 things that made me get up hills easier was lower gearing and loosing weight - but I lost the weight by cycling to work !!!!
Another thing is to practice going up hills at your own pace - the jumping out of saddle, sitting down, then jumping out again never worked for me (YMMV) - I find a suitable gear, hands on top of bars, and just plod up the up the hill at my own pace.....Technique I suppose

ianbar

i do tend to stay seated pretty much 90% of the time climbing unless i know i only have the one climb etc on my route. i think i am more and more convinced to not go down the triple route and just get out there and work! i can t say i will stop eating but i will try and lose at least some weight but practice hills much more, which i have done in short spells before. i think i have more been turned by my mate blowing me away, but in reality he is probably 2st+ lighter then me, i actually think i could be fitter i am just heavier then him.

keezx

Don't listen to the trolls, just get the gears you need.....

ai_1

Keezx wrote:

Don't listen to the trolls, just get the gears you need.....

Agreed.
Don't try and live with a 34/25 or 34/28 smallest gear if that's not allowing you to ride the way you want to. Buy something that works now, not what you would like to use in the future. Fit the machine to your body, not the other way around. You can always switch to a more compact cassette later if you no longer need the smaller gears. Get a wide range cassette with a compact or go for a triple. Both work well. Neither will magically transform your performance but they may make your rides more comfortable and enjoyable and allow you get up steeper hills in the saddle.

@Keezx - While I agree triples can give you great gearing options I don't understand why you appear to dislike compacts. Why would you say a triple is the intelligent solution rather than a compact with a wide range cassette?

keezx

Ai_1 wrote:

Keezx wrote:

@Keezx - While I agree triples can give you great gearing options I don't understand why you appear to dislike compacts. Why would you say a triple is the intelligent solution rather than a compact with a wide range cassette?

Wider gaps in the cassette and less useful gears in the middle.
I do own a bike with compact chainset but not with 50x34 but 46x34 or 50x42 , depends where I am.
(I'm Dutch)
50x 34 is a really lousy compromise, too weak to pull the 39 and too big in the front does not match well.
For racing in hilly area's it's okay, but I understood the TS does not do that.

I personally don't see any disadvantages with triple:
Weigt? Well I think a compact with a steel 32 or 34 isn't any lighter than a triple with only 1 alloy 30 extra....
Looks? Nobody looks at my gears when I pass them.....
I can ride the "normal" 52x42 and still be able to climb the steepest with 30x 26.
In my vacations I often climb with youngsters in France, and nobody ever has commented on my "granny gear" even when the beat me..
Might be because I AM a granny at 61....

StillGoing

Stick with the compact 50/34 and change the cassette. Once you lose your weight and gain technique with the hills, you can always switch the 34 to a 36 or bigger in 110bcd without the expense of new chainrings. Ignore your mate going up hills quicker than you. You aren't going to compete with him being 2st heavier unless your fitness is far superior. Accept the hills for what they are; a challenge, and enjoy them by going up at a pace you can cope with. If your mate doesn't like waiting at the top for you, then choose your routes with him more carefully with more downhill where your weight will kick his backside.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

....If your mate doesn't like waiting at the top for you, then choose your routes with him more carefully with more downhill where your weight will kick his backside.

I don't know. I'm much heavier than my brother who I usually ride with in the mountains. He kicks my backside up the hills but he keeps up pretty well on the downhills too. I'll pull away if the decents are straight but that's rare and light guys can brake much quicker meaning they have the upper hand on twisty descents.

ianbar

well i do tend to defend far faster, quite amusingly so actually lol

i will make a final decision when i next go to lbs for service, i will probably got for a bigger cassette just to give me a little bit of help, but not go the whole way of getting triple.

ianbar

just going to finish my porridge and coffee then go and hit some local cat climbs now!

charlie_potatoes

Keezx wrote:

Don't listen to the trolls

A range of opinion and advice that you would expect to find on a vibrant forum? Yes

Trolling? No. Perhaps your post comes the closest?.......

Keezx wrote:

Agree.
Compacts are for bikesnobs who want to keep up the appearence of a real racer but are to weak to pull a real gear.
Triples are for intelligent people who choose their own gears and don't give a damn about rules.

keezx

That was a reaction on a troll, mistake clearly....

simon_e

ianbar wrote:

i will make a final decision when i next go to lbs for service, i will probably got for a bigger cassette just to give me a little bit of help, but not go the whole way of getting triple.

My suggestion is to find out what cassette you can use with your current rear derailleur. If it's no more than 2 teeth bigger than your current cassette then ask about a rear mech that handles a bigger cassette. To change from a compact you're probably looking at a new chainset, front mech and left shifter, possibly a rear mech too.

This graph might help compare the ratios. Solid lines are triple (52/42/30), dashed are the compact (50/34), both with 12-25t cassette.



A 28t or larger cassette would match the triple's smallest ratio. I like my triple but, as others have said, it is not better, merely an alternative spread of gears.

mattsccm

IMO there are two reasons to buy a triple.
The first is that you will be able to get a lower gear than you will with a compact as compacts will accept a 34t at the smallest. 22 is possible with a triple. Of course you may not need that.
The other reason is that you do away with big gaps in the rear which may be nicer to you. The modern trend for a 30t at the back creates a horribly gappy cassette. Again that's up to you.

I am going to make the assumption that like shoes and helmets, you would be plain crazy not to try the options first, even if it means going into a shop and pretending to try out a bike :oops:

StillGoing

mattsccm wrote:

IMO there are two reasons to buy a triple.
The first is that you will be able to get a lower gear than you will with a compact as compacts will accept a 34t at the smallest. 22 is possible with a triple. Of course you may not need that.
The other reason is that you do away with big gaps in the rear which may be nicer to you. The modern trend for a 30t at the back creates a horribly gappy cassette. Again that's up to you.

I am going to make the assumption that like shoes and helmets, you would be plain crazy not to try the options first, even if it means going into a shop and pretending to try out a bike :oops:

If he's looking to put a 12/30 cassette on, it's only going to be a short term solution until the weight comes off or he gets better at climbing and then the 12/28 can go back on which has a decent spread of gears. The cost of a Tiagra 10 speed cassette is £20 or so against the cost of a triple chainset and everything else he'd need to purchase to go with it. Maybe he'll have to buy another RD and chain to accommodate the bigger cassette, but it still won't bring the costs anywhere near changing from a compact to a triple and changing the cassette is a damn sight easier than changing chainsets, shifters and front derailleur if he doesn't have the experience or know-how to do it. Cheaper to ask his LBS to do it too.

KnightOfTheLongTights

SimonE - interesting graph that.
I got a triple on my first bike which is now my commuter - and I really don't need it for that at all.
But I also use it as a tourer and it has been invaluable for that: I know I can do 100-150km days with panniers in not just hilly but mountainous terrain. Just wouldn't be able to do that with a 'standard compact' (50-34 / 11-28).
Perhaps not so relevant to the OPs predicament - just a shout out for the virtues of a triple.

alan_sherman

I ride a compact 50x36 but a triple (or a std double) would probably be better. The trouble with the compact is that a 34 or 36 inner means that on flat to rolling terrain, riding at 90 rpm and 19-20 mph you are right at the point of changing front gears. Results in lots of front shifting for my riding. I see a lot of other riders with serious cross chain on the large sprocket / large ring combo which is really graunchy.

A standard double would probably be better on my 'best' bike as a 39 would allow social riding in the inner ring up to 25 mph (vs 22 with a 34 chainring but I get chainrub). The big ring is then for for spirited stuff. For my commuter a single 39 ring would do. As that bike is also used for touring and winter training a triple makes sense to get the 30 ring for steep stuff and the 50 ring for downhills and chaingangs. A 50 is a big enough ring for racing with an 11 sprocket at the back.


Use this tool from sheldon brown and select "MPH @ 90 RPM" to see what I mean.

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

A 39 ring gives a good spread from 10 to 25 mph with a 11-28 cassette. No front shifting required, std chainsets suffer from less chain rub in the extreme gears too.

simon_e

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

SimonE - interesting graph that.
I got a triple on my first bike which is now my commuter - and I really don't need it for that at all.
But I also use it as a tourer and it has been invaluable for that: I know I can do 100-150km days with panniers in not just hilly but mountainous terrain. Just wouldn't be able to do that with a 'standard compact' (50-34 / 11-28).
Perhaps not so relevant to the OPs predicament - just a shout out for the virtues of a triple.

34 x 32 is the same gearing as 30 x 28 on a triple (about 28"). Even 39 x 32 works out at 32", barely higher than the 31" gear with 30 x 25.

I'm not saying one or the other is better, just that you can achieve pretty low gearing on a compact with a large enough cassette. However, my experience of riding with compact owners in rolling terrain is exactly like that described alan sherman above, which is one reason I am happy to stick with the triple on my SCR. The weight difference of the extra chainring is around 150g, which is not worth thinking about. Most compact owners would be better served by a cyclocross chainset, which has 46T big ring.

StillGoing

SRAM allows you to cross chain. I tend to use the inner ring and 14/13 tooth at around 94rpm giving me 19-20mph without issue. Cross chaining used to be an issue on old bikes but isn't the deal it was on modern bikes.

keezx

Whatever a manufacturer says, a cross chain wears out faster.

Bordersroadie

philthy3 wrote:

Cross chaining used to be an issue on old bikes but isn't the deal it was on modern bikes.

Not true. It prematurely wears the chain and the big chainring. I've seen it plenty of times but if you haven't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why this would happen.

Or believe the SRAM marketing bollox - I wonder why they might condone cross chaining? Erm.....