to triple or not?

Bordersroadie

The virtues of a triple are missed by 99.9% of riders due to image/marketing/vanity/ego/sheep mentality issues.

It's not about weak legs/beginners, it's about real world gear ratios to give the best cadence control. I use a 12-23 and a 12-25 with a 52-39-28 which does everything from TTs to climbing walls, with none of the nasty big gear gaps, crashing front changes or crosschaining that a compact serves up.

Triples, Vote YES today!

slowbike

Bordersroadie wrote:

The virtues of a triple are missed by 99.9% of riders due to image/marketing/vanity/ego/sheep mentality issues.

It's not about weak legs/beginners, it's about real world gear ratios to give the best cadence control. I use a 12-23 and a 12-25 with a 52-39-28 which does everything from TTs to climbing walls, with none of the nasty big gear gaps, crashing front changes or crosschaining that a compact serves up.

Triples, Vote YES today!

But that's the whole point isn't it ... I use a compact and a standard double on two of my bikes. I have no big gaps and there's no nasty crashing front changes or cross chaining. I can ride at 16-24mph on the big ring and have no problems with my cadence. So why would I need a triple?!
I have a triple on my CX bike that I use for touring, family rides or wet commuting - I could do without the 30 inner chainring, but do occasionally use it. Funnily enough, when riding by myself on that one I spend most of my time in the big chainring ... perhaps the other two are wasted!

Don't be an arse ... Vote for the most suitable chainset for your requirements ...

StillGoing

Bordersroadie wrote:

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.....

I wouldn't condone going small/small or big/big, but so many say you shouldn't go more than 2 gears beyond half way over the cassette for each chain ring. Going to the last but one sprocket either way is not going to cause overly excessive wear to the chain and will miss the big ring when on the small ring. What's your evidence for the SRAM view of their product being marketing bollox?

ai_1

Bordersroadie wrote:

The virtues of a triple are missed by 99.9% of riders due to image/marketing/vanity/ego/sheep mentality issues.

I'll agree wioth you there to a large extent. Most of those who dismiss or even ridicule triples are just ignorant.

Bordersroadie wrote:

.....none of the nasty big gear gaps, crashing front changes or crosschaining that a compact serves up....

I used to ride a 9 speed triple (usually 12-27 sometimes 12-23) and still do from time to time and now ride an 11 speed compact too. I ride both flat and mountainous routes. Nasty big gear gaps? - Not really, with the 11-28 the compact is no "gappier" than the triple. This is the advantage of the extra couple of sprockets and the reason I'm a little confused when people say 11 speed is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist: more sprockets = less downside to a wide range cassette. I may get another cassette (maybe 12-25 ) for routes with no big hills like I did with the triple but it's certainly not a necessity.
As for crashing front changes.....what?
My compact changes considerably better than my triple. Nothing to do with it being a compact, just the fact that Ultegra 6800 changes chainring beautifully. However, I've also used older compact groupsets a few times on rental bikes and never had "crashing front changes". Crosschaining? There's no need for severe crosschaining. Just change chainring as and when appropriate as you would with a triple. I don't see where you would have a problem here unless you've gotten into the habit of just sitting in the 39 chainring of your triple the whole time. I rarely crosschain much on either bike because there's no need. If you were to do it anyway, well the wider chainring set on the triple means crosschaining from the large or small chainrings is a bigger issue than crosschaining from either ring on a compact.

alan_sherman

The big question is "are Shimano going to do a triple for 105 11 speed? There was talk of it in the early press releases but not seen anything on bikes or available to buy.

ianbar

alan sherman wrote:

The big question is "are Shimano going to do a triple for 105 11 speed? There was talk of it in the early press releases but not seen anything on bikes or available to buy.

i think that would make me spend my money!

gozzy

A common comment I see on these kind of threads is people complaining about having to front shift. Can anyone tell me what is so awful about having to front shift? It's not like it's remotely difficult.

desweller

Gozzy wrote:

A common comment I see on these kind of threads is people complaining about having to front shift. Can anyone tell me what is so awful about having to front shift? It's not like it's remotely difficult.

You have to lift for longer when you're executing a shift at the front and also execute multiple shifts on the back to get the next available ratio. Decidedly inconvenient!

My own particular additional problem is that I have dodgy joints in my hands and I find it difficult to carry out the big throw of the left lever on upshifts.

Bordersroadie

Gozzy wrote:

A common comment I see on these kind of threads is people complaining about having to front shift. Can anyone tell me what is so awful about having to front shift? It's not like it's remotely difficult.

I ride road bikes with triples (50-39-30 and 52-39-28), standard (52-39) and compact (50-34) so can make a fair comparison.

On my regular hillyish commute (12 miles, 60 feet per mile elevation gain) I can and often do the whole commute on the 39 ring, so no front changes, with a nice close ratio 12-23 or 12-25 cassette. On the compact I often seem to need a cadence that equates to big-big or small-small so to avoid crosschaining I feel like I'm constantly changing up and down the front with corresponding simultaneous changes at the back. So in answer to your question, no, front changing is not actually difficult or awful, but it makes life a lot easier when you have a set up that allows hundreds of miles with virtually no front changes, no cross chaining and no annoying additional rear shifts each and every time you change up front.

When I referred to "crashing" front changes, I meant the comparison of a change on a 50-34 with a 50-39, with the same groupset, is like night and day in terms of smoothness, and in the case of the 50-39 there is little or no need to make a simultaneous rear change.

I've said it before but if you have (say) a 50-39-30 with a 12-23 out back, the closeness of the ratios and the fact that you can use the 39 so much, make it a much better proposition if you want to (a) always have a perfect cadence and (b) make far fewer front changes (or avoid crosschaining on the 50 which is invariably the result of trying to avoid (b).

Also when climbing, the set of climbing gears available with a 30 front combined with say a 12-25 cassette show the gears on a typical compact (say 11-28, 12-30, 12-32 etc) to have huge gaps, so cadence always has to be a compromise.

It always makes me laugh that for the majority of roadies, having a cassette the size of a dinner plate and a small chainring only 4 teeth more than a triple granny is somehow cool, but having a triple up front with a decent close ratio cassette is something to be ridiculed.

gozzy

I'm in agreement with all of that. I'm a thorough advocate of triples, they're all I ride, I like the close ratios and I'm surrounded by hills. That's where my front shifting is easy comes from, cos it is, I rarely need to shift the rear mech after a front shift. I had though, forgotten that compacts usually need both ends shifting thanks to the 34 ring.

I guess the root of what I was thinking is why do people buy compacts then complain that the shifting is awful and the gears to far apart, when a triple works so much better. (Yeah,yeah, 11 speed etc gets you better ratios, but you still have that double shift).

ianbar

to be fair i have been training hard and constant last couple of weeks, yesterday i went up the most local nasty climb, about 1 mile long and hits 15%. and i took 30 seconds off it!...and didn't keel over at the top lol i have ordered a bigger cassette but now as i am on a high i have probably wasted that money but it was only £12 so not too bad...maybe it spurred me on to improve!

ai_1

ianbar wrote:

to be fair i have been training hard and constant last couple of weeks, yesterday i went up the most local nasty climb, about 1 mile long and hits 15%. and i took 30 seconds off it!...and didn't keel over at the top lol i have ordered a bigger cassette but now as i am on a high i have probably wasted that money but it was only £12 so not too bad...maybe it spurred me on to improve!

You might appreciate the bigger cassette if you do several similar climbs on a long sportive! For £12 you can throw it on and see which works best for you on your local hills or leave it off and have the option should the need arise in future. I used to use a 12-23 on my triple when I didn't expect to be in the hills for a while as it was ideal for relatively flat rides but I used a 12-27 most of the time as I found that the ideal all rounder and I was too lazy to keep switching cassettes. Later when I got a turbo trainer, I put the 23 on the wheel I use on the trainer and it's been there since. But now I've got a new road bike and converted the triple bike to a TT configuration with clip-on bar extensions and a forward saddle position so it makes sense for the 12-23 to go back on permanently now.

ianbar

yeah hats a good point, the most local sportive has that climb but also another 5 similar! so quite hard work! i will stick it on and see how it feels

KnightOfTheLongTights

Simon E wrote:

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.

Right sorry - still trying to get my head around all this, always struggled with ratios and spreads / gaps.
Would I be right in saying that, vis-a-vis the two bikes I have at the moment, a 50-34 / 11-28 and a 52-39-30 / 11-25: the 30-25 is an easier gear than the 34-28?
And that, if I wanted to get a tourer / CX / commuter that would get me up anything (given that I've never needed anything more than the 30-25 before, but I might do as I get older) , I could consider a compact with something liek a 48t big ring and a 34, with a 9-speed cassette, going up to 30t?

slowbike

ianbar wrote:

yeah hats a good point, the most local sportive has that climb but also another 5 similar! so quite hard work! i will stick it on and see how it feels

with the colder days here now I'd put the bigger cassette on for that - it's always harder work in "winter" so the easier gears will be nice (just don't look at your average MPH - or change it to display KMH for the next 6 months or so! - that's no matter which cassette you use)

slowbike

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Right sorry - still trying to get my head around all this, always struggled with ratios and spreads / gaps.
Would I be right in saying that, vis-a-vis the two bikes I have at the moment, a 50-34 / 11-28 and a 52-39-30 / 11-25: the 30-25 is an easier gear than the 34-28?

Yes - but not by much

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=30,3 ... =2099&SL=2

KnightOfTheLongTights

Slowbike wrote:

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Right sorry - still trying to get my head around all this, always struggled with ratios and spreads / gaps.
Would I be right in saying that, vis-a-vis the two bikes I have at the moment, a 50-34 / 11-28 and a 52-39-30 / 11-25: the 30-25 is an easier gear than the 34-28?

Yes - but not by much

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=30,3 ... =2099&SL=2

OK right interesting - seems the difference I feel is mainly psychological! Specially as the bike with the triple is a lot heavier than that with the compact...

hjghg5

At the moment I have two bikes with triples and one with a compact. One of my triples is in gran canaria where I have family. It is an ex hire bike and when I bought it all the bike rental places stocked triples. Now they mainly use compacts with a 32 on the back. The lowest gear may be similar but I do like the 39 ring on more rolling bits of rides. We're out here now and my OH is trying out the 34-32 set up this week and is letting me know what he thinks!

(My compact is actually having a new 6800 groupset while I'm away, I'm going for a 28 at the back but with the longer cage derailleur just in case).

My two uk bikes have lowest gears of 30-30 and 34-27 (soon to be 28). The compact is a lighter bike than the triple but I was surprised that when I rode the same hill on both bikes fairly close together (a big enough climb to be in the 100 climbs book) the triple didn't actually feel that much easier - I went slower and had to put more pedal strokes in to move the same distance! I didn't use the absolute bottom gear but I did use a lower gear than I had on the compact.

I like them all and I like having choices - sometimes I take the triple out if I know a ride is particularly hilly. And I always seem to struggle in spring when I get back out on the good bike and realise I no longer have a 39 ring so need to get used to switching between rings more often!

ForumNewbie

Gozzy wrote:

I guess the root of what I was thinking is why do people buy compacts then complain that the shifting is awful and the gears to far apart, when a triple works so much better. (Yeah,yeah, 11 speed etc gets you better ratios, but you still have that double shift).

I agree that triples are better. The problem is that most new roads bikes for sale nowadays are sold with compacts. For some strange reason a lot of roadies here in the UK prefer to have only two rings on the front - as if it's less macho to have a triple. I have a hybrid and steel Audax bike with triples, and a few years ago I bought a carbon road bike with a compact. Although it's a much lighter bike it's harder work getting up steep hills, and as said in posts above it's too big a jump at the front between 50 and 34, meaning you usually have to immediately shift at the back as well. I think the better cadence of a triple is more beneficial that the weight saving of one less front ring.

keezx

What weight saving? One sip of water.....

Bordersroadie

Keezx wrote:

What weight saving? One sip of water.....

I worked out the difference once, assuming 105 5700, crankset, left hand shifter changes and it came to 150g if I recall - this was based on actual weights not quoted. This is before you subtract the weight benefit of (say) using a 12-25 cassette vs 12-30, 11-32, 12-28 or whatever rear dinner plate you might use on a compact set up to achieve a low gear.

So somewhere in the region of 100g, maybe less.

By the way my best bike has a 52-39-28 FSA K-light carbon cranskset that weighs 670g which is less than many compacts, so adding 100g is not necessarily an issue with triples.

keezx

Weight is the least thing to worry about with triples.
The only disadavantage to me is the worse chainline on the big ring and the middle cogs when riding on the flat (which is a lot for me as I live in the Netherlands) but it doesn't result in noticeable faster chain wear.
I have two road bikes and by coincidence I've ridden both app. 5000 km this year and bothe chains are 120,1 mm measured with a caliper, which is app. 0,5%(Campagnolo 9 speed) EOL will be over 6000 kms....
One bike for races and training has 52x42 front with 12-23 and the other for long training rides and mountains has 52x42x28 with 12-26

ben@31

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

.... And that, if I wanted to get a tourer / CX / commuter that would get me up anything (given that I've never needed anything more than the 30-25 before, but I might do as I get older)

My road bike is a compact. I stayed at a relatives for a few days and borrowed their tourer/commuter/hybrid thing that has a triple, to cycle around their local area. Great I thought, it'll have some lower gears for the hills around their area than my 50-34 11-25 road bike.
However I v.quickly found the weight of the entire bike made any gearing advantage obsolete. It was like a tank. I think some hybrid / commuters can tip the scales at 14kg.