Triple vs. Double Chain ring

That all depends on your local terrain, your fitness and what gearing you set up with your double.

Do you currently use your smallest chainring for a lot of your climbing? If you do rely on the smallest front chainring what rear cogs do you usually select when climbing?

If you're regularly using your smallest gears and that's what you need for your local terrain then you might struggle with conventional double chainring setups. If you use the small front of your triple with a mid cluster rear cog or spend a fair bit of your climbing time in the middle chainring then you probably don't need the ultra low gearing of your triple.

These days compact doubles combined with wide range rear clusters can get you pretty close to both the low and high gearing of conventional triples. Something like a 50x34 compact crankset coupled to say a 12-28 or 11-28 rear cluster gives you a very wide range of gears but the low end for climbing isn't quite as low as a conventional triple. So again it depends on what gears you need for your local climbs, if you go all the way down to your lowest combo with your triple and really need that gear to get up hills at your preferred cadence then even a compact double may be force you to grind bigger gears on the climbs than you'd like.

-Dave

On steep climbs, I go all way the way down to the smallest ring to keep my cadence up. Should I practice using maybe 1 or 2 up? Would that be close to what a double would be?

Well again it depends on the gears you're running now and whether you'd run a standard (e.g. 52x39) or compact (i.e. 50x34) chainring and what cluster you'd match it with.

Track riders (at least in the US) often think of this in gear inches, lower numbers are easier to climb in and regardless of the exact gear combo you can directly compare gear inches which are:

chainring_teeth/cog_teeth * 27 for a standard road bike

so for instance if you typically ride in the 30 tooth granny gear up front and say a 27 tooth rear cog that would be:

30/27*27 = 30 gear inches

compare that to say a compact with a 34 tooth small ring and maybe a 28 tooth big cog in the rear

34/28*27 = ~33 gear inches so a slightly bigger gear

So think about what gears you'd have available if you switch and try some riding in equivalent or close gears with your current triple setup to see if it works for you.

In the example above shifting up one rear cog while riding your triple in the granny gear would likely put you in a 25 in the rear or:

30/25*27 ~32 gear inches which is very close to what you'd get with the compact paired with a 28 tooth rear cog.

Compare any other combos you're thinking about with the closest you can get on your current setup and you should be able to figure out if a compact double will work for you. It probably will.

-Dave

Thanks for your help Dave. Great answer.

In thinking about this more, even though I know serious cyclists would never have a triple can anyone explain why not? I've found that I am a better rider with 3, and it's a great "backup" to have the granny gear. The extra weight doesn't seem to be worth the trade-off...

There's nothing wrong with running a triple.

Racers tend not to use them because they don't need as much low end and minimizing front shifts is generally a good thing, especially in competition. Front shifts are where chains get thrown and the risk is a bit greater with a triple or with frequent shifting so if you don't need that low end then why bother. Triples also require medium to long cage rear derailleurs to take up the extra chain slack that you'll need to cover such a large range of front gears. Longer cage rear derailleurs aren't typically as quick on rear gear shifts as short cage rear derailleurs so another reason racers tend to shy away from triples.

But it doesn't sound like you're racing and you find the low gearing convenient for your local hills. Lot's of very accomplished riders like triples, especially if they live in mountainous terrain. Don't let cycling fashion steer your component decisions. If you don't have a good reason to swap to a double and use your low gears on the triple fairly often then don't switch.

-Dave

Thanks Dave. I like your quote: "Don't let cycling fashion steer your component decisions." I have to say, I've been riding for a few years, and am still getting used to the attitudes of some. I came from running, and that community seems much more supportive.

thanks again

I hate to say it, but since I'm a few years older than you, I will [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

at our age,we should be riding for health and fun, maybe to get stronger, and the triple only helps for that. You get up the hill, who cares what gears you use. Is there any reason to work harder? Or, are you working about as hard as you care to the way it is?

Anyway, I'm a BIG fan of a good road triple (Ultegra 52-42-30). I enjoyed cycling so much more when I got a bike with a triple a few years ago after struggling with a regular double (kind of before the popularization of the compact, so that wasn't an option back then). This year just for fun, I'm switching to a compact double set up. Why? Because I want to try Sram and they don't make a triple and second, I want to see if it is good enough for me. I need low gears, I like low gears and low gears get me up the hill as fast as I can go. If the triple with the 11-28 cassette I have won't do it I'll happily switch back to the Ultegra triple, or maybe go with ....

....what I noticed something interesting in my favorite LBS the other day. They're starting to market bikes that used to have triples w/ compact doubles, but with MTB cassettes, like 11-32+, and rear derailleurs. Obviously, to get the gearing range from high to low that a triple will give you, you need both the 11 small cog and a 32+ large cog in back. Nothing wrong with that, it's probably a good solution to the compromise of the compact double. (the compromise being that there is no way it can be as effective as the double, but was invented to stroke the ego of those who need the low gearing but want to pretend and look like they don't.)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Camilo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I hate to say it, but since I'm a few years older than you, I will [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

at our age,we should be riding for health and fun, maybe to get stronger, and the triple only helps for that. You get up the hill, who cares what gears you use. Is there any reason to work harder? Or, are you working about as hard as you care to the way it is?

Anyway, I'm a BIG fan of a good road triple (Ultegra 52-42-30). I enjoyed cycling so much more when I got a bike with a triple a few years ago after struggling with a regular double (kind of before the popularization of the compact, so that wasn't an option back then). This year just for fun, I'm switching to a compact double set up. Why? Because I want to try Sram and they don't make a triple and second, I want to see if it is good enough for me. I need low gears, I like low gears and low gears get me up the hill as fast as I can go. If the triple with the 11-28 cassette I have won't do it I'll happily switch back to the Ultegra triple, or maybe go with ....

....what I noticed something interesting in my favorite LBS the other day. They're starting to market bikes that used to have triples w/ compact doubles, but with MTB cassettes, like 11-32+, and rear derailleurs. Obviously, to get the gearing range from high to low that a triple will give you, you need both the 11 small cog and a 32+ large cog in back. Nothing wrong with that, it's probably a good solution to the compromise of the compact double. (the compromise being that there is no way it can be as effective as the double, but was invented to stroke the ego of those who need the low gearing but want to pretend and look like they don't.)

You don't need a Sram crank to run Sram. If you're running a hollowtech Ultegra, probably be easier/less expensive to source a double compact Shimano crankset and slip it into the BB you already have. Shimano has an adjustment spec for "blocking out" the third ring position. If you're a real "nit", swap in a shimano double front mech for better shifting (cage design). That way you can experiment with a compact crank/cassettes and see if you like it. If you do and still want to go Sram, then keep the Shimano double/BB but swap out the mechs and brifters. The Ultegra crank has a small wieght penalty but will function fine with the remainder of the Sram components. If you don't like the compact double, then all you have to do is slide your triple back in and readjust your front mech.

Some of this is "mental". My wife struggles at times with three front rings. To simplify, I did exactly what I suggested above and made sure I covered her original range hi-lo. She hated it. Said she needed the lower gears. She had them - almost identical gear inch for gear inch - but the ratios were spaced farther apart because the rear cassette was providing the spread. So out came the double and triple reinserted. She still struggles with getting on and off her inner ring at times, but c'est la vie. She's happy.

I had to laugh when I saw the OP say he was "old man at 53" Try 71. I have to say that for me the triple is a good set up and I missed it a lot when I got a compact on my Felt AR4. I went to a 11-36 cassette and a long cage derailer to solve the problem. If I could do it all over again I would have either kept my old triple or got this one with a triple, but I am just a little bit older than the OP.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

There's nothing wrong with running a triple.

Racers tend not to use them because they don't need as much low end and minimizing front shifts is generally a good thing, especially in competition. Front shifts are where chains get thrown and the risk is a bit greater with a triple or with frequent shifting so if you don't need that low end then why bother. Triples also require medium to long cage rear derailleurs to take up the extra chain slack that you'll need to cover such a large range of front gears. Longer cage rear derailleurs aren't typically as quick on rear gear shifts as short cage rear derailleurs so another reason racers tend to shy away from triples.

-Dave

I have a bike with Ultegra 6700 components including a triple. The shifts seem fine to me and I have another Ultegra 6600 bike that has a double and I don't really notice any difference in shifting speed between the shorter and longer cages. Maybe a racer would notice.

I recently built another bike using an older Campy Chorus short (standard?) rear derailleur. All the info I could find said that the most this derailleur would handle is a cog with 26 teeth. But I'm using a a cassette that has a 32 and it works fine. Coupled to a a 39 in the front, it isn't bad on hills. My triple bike has a 30 front and 25 rear so is a bit lower overall. I could change the 25 to a 28 to get even lower but see no need to do so.

" I'm an old guy (53)"

......a mere child, just a babe....[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

Fair enough I live in pretty lumpy bumpy country but I've always had a triple (105) and always will - unless one's shaving ounces off kit why wouldn't one? If I don't have to use the small ring I don't but when I do it needs to be on the bike not in the catalogue. Have to say you don't have to walk far up a hill to mess up a set of cleats so it must have paid for itself many times over by now.

I've a new bike on order from those nice chaps at Rose.de - and to re-spec any Rose bike from a double or compact to a triple costs just fifty euros. Kerchinggg! - sale made and let the (over) serious riders sniff at me if they must.

Regards as always

David

I have both: a 105 triple with a 12/30 on back and a compact double Ultegra with 11/30 on back. The compact set up is "quicker", smoother and more responsive and I only ride my triple on long rides... say 60/100 miles; I enjoy riding my compact more often. I live in very hilly terrain (north Atlanta).
For me ther's actually very little perceptible difference from 30/30 to 34/30 (11%) but when I'm really tired on long rides it seems to help on those steep long hills....

A well setup triple will shift fast and reliably and "throwing the chain" shouldn't be an issue. If you're doing lots of climbing during a ride and there's a wide variation in the gradients then a triple paired with a cassette that offers closer ratios may be more preferable than a compact with a very wide ratio cassette such as an 11-32. A long cage derailleur, such as an XTR will shift as perceivably quick as it's Dura Ace counterpart.

If that setup was good enough for Battaglin to win the Giro d'Italia on in the early 80's then it's good enough for most folk on here 😉

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by rclouviere [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I've had two bikes, both with triple rings. I'm an old guy (53) and am a pretty good climber. Is it because I have a triple ring? If I went with a double, would it effect my climbing much? Thanks for the help.

What does it mean to be "a pretty good climber." I would think a high power to weight ratio would be necessary as would proper gearing. As climbs grow longer sustainable power to weight ratios decrease. As the sustainable power to weight ratio falls the need for lower gears increases. On the other hand as fitness improves sustainable power to weight ratio increases.

As others have said determine what gearing you need to get up the worse of your hills and see if a double will supply a comparable gear.

---

While some are talking about wide range (11-32) cassettes, there is no need to settle on such a wide range. I have a 14-27 cassette and I only use the 16-27: Closely spaced ratios that get me up my hills and down the road as fast as I really want to and able to go.

Todays Apex gearing from SRAM gives you just as low a gear as a traditional 50/39/30 triple will by using a 34tooth rear vs the 28tooth rear on most triples. Where the triple has an advantage is that IF you need even lower gearing it's available with a triple by making the rear cogs even bigger or going with a 26 inner tooth chainring. More importantly, and why I just got a triple Roubaix, is that with the tighter cassette you get...tighter gearing in the lower gears. The gears aren't spread out as much in the cassette so each gear change is a little less of a jump. I got my triple because when a headwind hits me and I want to lower my gear just a little bit, I can do it more efficiently with my triple than with a double. The extra weight is meaningless to a non-racer as is the speed of the shift. Shifting from inner to middle isn't fast but I couldn't care less.

Like your advice david

I currently ride with a triple and for most of my ride don't use the small chainring but if I get into the hills around home I'll spend a lot of time using it and I'm glad I have it available to me.

As I see it, it really doesn't matter. I used to ride a triple and I hardly ever used the smallest ring. I now have a double and it seems perfect. I'm 49 and I have quite a mixed bag of terrain with some steep climbs in there. Ride like the wind, Bullseye!!