Are three chainrings a "cop out" on hills?

[hotdiggity]

I ride an '08 Cannondale CAAD9 5 road bike. As it's the double chainring version (105 - 39/53), I'm wondering if this wasn't such a great idea for hill climbs as I try to ride a local circuit a couple of times a week (11ks of steeply undulating road, its steepest gradient being 9% over 2.2km). Would the ease of having triple chainrings come at the expense of being frowned upon by the cycling fraternity? While I don't mind the workout of double chainrings, the number of cyclist who pass me is slightly disconcerting!

 

[coneofsilence]

I ride an '08 Cannondale CAAD9 5 road bike. As it's the double chainring version (105 - 39/53), I'm wondering if this wasn't such a great idea for hill climbs as I try to ride Mt Coot-tha in Brisbane a couple of times a week which has its steepest gradient of 9% over 2.2km (11kms in total of undulating road). Would the ease of having triple chainrings come at the expense of being frowned upon by the cycling fraternity? While I don't mind the workout of double chainrings, the number of cyclist who pass me is slightly disconcerting!

I personally don't think 3 chainrings are a copout. If your out there riding and giving it 100% then its not a copout. And what does it really matter if someone doesn't like that you have three chainrings. There are bigger problems in the world then that.

 

[Camilo]

No. Final answer.

 

[Yojimbo_]

Of course it doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is your own.

What cassette are you running on the back? Maybe you should put on a 25 or a 27 back there if you don't have one.

 

[alfeng]

Of course it doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is your own.

What cassette are you running on the back? Maybe you should put on a 25 or a 27 back there if you don't have one.

+1.

Also, depending on your budget, consider getting a "Compact" crankset with 50/34 or 52/36 chainrings ...

Switching to a Triple will usually require new derailleurs, a longer chain AND you (generic) will need to have shifters which can accommodate a Triple.

 

[kdelong]

All good and accurate information. Changing to a triple is expensive because you have to replace nearly the entire drivetrain. There are a lot of riders who eschew triples because they don't want to carry around the extra weight, especially for a granny gear that they may never use. They tend to go with the compact cranksets and a cassette that has the low cogs that they need for the terrain that they are riding in. This equals less weight but low enough gearing so that they don't kill themselves on the climbs. But nobody frowns upon triples or the riders that use them.

 

[hotdiggity]

Many thanks for the great advice. Admittedly hadn't thought of the weight factor with the extra chainring so I'd rather avoid that and the other associated expenses. Looking at the Cannondale archives the rear cluster is Shimano 105, 12-25. I recently rebuilt the hub and noted that 3 of the lower geared cogs are one piece. Sounds like I'd be replacing them together or will I need to source a whole new cluster?

 

[Yojimbo_]

A whole new cluster.

 

[hotdiggity]

OK, so what's a good spread of cogs? Wouldn't want to go any larger than the 12 tooth sprocket for the highest gear...

 

[alfeng]

OK, so what's a good spread of cogs? Wouldn't want to go any larger than the 12 tooth sprocket for the highest gear...

You may want to consider a MTB cassette (11-32 ... or, 11-34 ... or, 12-34) + a MTB rear derailleur ...

Depending on your current setup (9-speed or 10-speed), SOME tweaking may be required unless Shimano comes out with a 10-speed MTb rear between now & when you make the change OR you are willing to use less expensive 9-speed Shimano cassettes & chains.

 

[40thvette]

I never thought of my third ring as anything negative. The bike came with it. I have a 10 gear cassette that has very small increases between gears. I have not needed that smallest ring much, but there are some nasty hills out there. get in a head wind on a big hill & I am glad its there just incase.

 

[hotdiggity]

It's a 10 speed cassette.

Changing to a triple is expensive because you have to replace nearly the entire drivetrain.

Not clear on why I'd have to change the entire drive chain with a third chainring. The front shifters (105) have an extra click or two which I understood to be for a third chainring and wouldn't the rear derailleur take up any slack when the chain moves to the smaller ring?

 

[tafi]

You won't have to replace the entire drive train but you may need a new rear derailleur with a longer cage. The small chainring introduces extra slack which you don't get with a double. You may also need a new longer chain to work with the new derailleur.

If you go the route of a different cassette instead, in the first instance, you'd be shooting for a 27 or 28 which may need a slightly longer chain but no other changes.

Going to bigger sprockets (30/32/34) will need chains which are longer still and also necessitate a change in rear derailleur (long cage or MTB type) to accomodate this. Shimano are supposed to be producing their 10 speed "dyna-sys" MTB groups now so (hopefully) such cassettes will be on the market soon. SRAM already a 10 speed MTB set so you might get by with a SRAM cassette.

What you save in going these two routes is the cost of the crank.

If you were to go a double compact crank instead, you save having to buy a new rear derailleur (though you might need a new front one!) and cassette and, if anything, you'd probably shorten the existing chain.

It all really comes down to cost vs utility. But you'd have to do the sums on what works best.

 

[Camilo]

Many thanks for the great advice. Admittedly hadn't thought of the weight factor with the extra chainring so I'd rather avoid that and the other associated expenses...

The weight is such a small factor, it's pretty much laughable except to a real weight weenie. The weight equals the weight of the small chain ring - probably around 1 ounce (30 grams) for a 105-grade ring. The *difference* in weight between a short and long cage road rear derailleur is maybe another ounce. The only difference in the derailleurs is the cage itself. The body, pully wheels, etc. are the same.

Your chain will be a little longer too, and the FD will have a different shape, but I doubt that those two will even be anywhere near another ounce. The shifters will be essentially (if not actually) the same.

A couple-three ounces weight difference - not a factor.

The cost is a different thing, and could definitely be signficant because, if your shifters are triple compatible, you'll still need:

Triple crankset and bottom bracket
Triple FD
probably a longer cage RD.
New chain (probably needs to be a few links longer).

But if you consider that you re-sell the old parts, you might find the net cost to be fairly low.

If you need a triple set up, get a triple set up. If a compact double meets your needs, get a compact double. But don't let anyone tell you that there are meaningful disadvantages to a triple, it's just not true. And don't let anyone tell you that that you can get equivalent gearing with a compact double - it's just not true. For any given rear cassette, the triple will probably give you 2 gears in the low end, and 1 or 2 in the high end.

But again, it just depends on what you need. Don't go to the expense and effort of installing a triple unless you need it. Don't compromise with a compact double if it doesn't suit your needs.

 

[quenya]

Only the worst example of bike snob would care that you are riding a triple so don't worry about that. I would say however that a compact would be the better choice than the triple if only because you said that you are already capable of the climbs on your standard chainring and you don't like being passed by so many others. IME a compact will make you faster up a hill by giving you a little lower gearing saving your legs a bit of strain but, as you get lower gearing you lose speed so a triple might be overkill. A low gear of 39/25 is not ideal but a person can certainly ride longer and steeper grades than yours with that, a cassette switch could make that 39/28 which might be enough to keep you spinning but a compact/ cassette swap could give you a low gear of 34/28 which would be a huge change.


FWIW I ride a standard (54,39) crank with an 11-25 cog and climb long steep hills. One of the local hills is a 7 mile stretch that averages ~8% but has steep sections at the bottom (~10%)and top (~13%), one of my tactics is to up shift two cogs whenever I get out of the saddle, which is often, that way I can always down shift once or twice while I'm seated. What happens a lot is when I hit the steepest section near the top i'm in a middle cog and have plenty of gears in reserve.

 

[Frejus]

I ride an '08 Cannondale CAAD9 5 road bike. As it's the double chainring version (105 - 39/53), I'm wondering if this wasn't such a great idea for hill climbs as I try to ride a local circuit a couple of times a week (11ks of steeply undulating road, its steepest gradient being 9% over 2.2km). Would the ease of having triple chainrings come at the expense of being frowned upon by the cycling fraternity? While I don't mind the workout of double chainrings, the number of cyclist who pass me is slightly disconcerting!

You have had some varied and good advice. Being a former pro level rider age and weight makes hills an absolute trial I am in the bike trade and do many modifications. Last year I spent a month in France and joined a group following the Tour De France riding each mountain stage (part of normally 80ks) I fitted a 50/34 compact crank and a rear cassette 13/29 I had the option of 12/27 but some of the french alps climbs require respect.

I could have kept 53/39 and fitted a 12/27. But decided on compact purely that you get a step by step progression with each gear change and this makes sure you dont over rev and lactic up. This was fitted to a Campagnolo Record 10sp I fitted a new chain and cassette with the compact crankset and easily hauled my 90 plus kgs over the alps. Being back home I have kept this system fitted and easily ride with my group arriving fresher than most

 

[swampy1970]

A triple isn't a cop out.

Giovanni Battaglin's 1981 Pinarello "Tre Cime"

"This bike was specifically made for Giovanni Battaglin for the 1981 Giro d'Italia. It was his usual racing bike, but made for the very steep Tre Cime di Lavaredo stage that year. This was the first modern triple chainring used for road racing on this level. My father Giovanni came up with the idea back then; he took a regular Campagnolo Super Record chainset and then drilled out the crankarms.

"In our former workshop in Catena di Villorba, they made a special spider for the crankset to add a third chainring. Then the inner 36 tooth chainring was added to give an extra level of gear ratios. In those days, the smallest inside chainring you could use was a 42 tooth, so the gearing worked out as 36-42-53. And for the 1981 Giro time trial in Verona, we only used one chainring... it all worked perfectly and Battaglin won the Giro and the Vuelta that year. This bike had custom geometry for Battaglin, but otherwise it was our top racing bike back then; cast microfusion lugs and Columbus SL tubing with Campagnolo Super Record seven-speed."

www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

 

[GT Fanatic]

I ride an '08 Cannondale CAAD9 5 road bike. As it's the double chainring version (105 - 39/53), I'm wondering if this wasn't such a great idea for hill climbs as I try to ride a local circuit a couple of times a week (11ks of steeply undulating road, its steepest gradient being 9% over 2.2km). Would the ease of having triple chainrings come at the expense of being frowned upon by the cycling fraternity? While I don't mind the workout of double chainrings, the number of cyclist who pass me is slightly disconcerting!

Why do you care what other cyclists think about triple chainrings, and I'm more puzzled by why they would care.

A lot of bikes come with triple chainrings. If triples work for you, then by all means, use them. Even though I'm new to cycling, I can't see myself considering someone a "poser" because their bike has triple chainrings. Personally, I'd rather have triples, because triples normally have a slight advantage on top-end. I like to think of a triple chainring as a "high lift" cam like in a car; it has the mid/top-end advantage, while the double chainring has the "out of the hole" advantage.

If one's riding ability is judged by the number of chainrings on a bicycle, I'm thinking I don't want to join that club of morons...

 

[hotdiggity]

Ok, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on any group of riders, nor was I suggesting there was any negative attitude out there toward the number of chainrings one has on their bike, but just getting a difference in opinion, technically, about an additional chainwheel and for what reasons it may be "frowned" upon. Consequently I've learn't it could be expensive to crossgrade to a three and that it will make my bike slightly heavier. I like the compact cassette solution, but I think I'll hold off until the drivechain needs replacing now. I probably should have worded my starter thread better. Frankly, I don't really care and proof of this is while I ride Cannondale on the road, off road you'll find me riding a pimped Huffy MTB - so there! Thank you all for your practical advice!

 

[GT Fanatic]

Ok, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on any group of riders, nor was I suggesting there was any negative attitude out there toward the number of chainrings one has on their bike, but just getting a difference in opinion, technically, about an additional chainwheel and for what reasons it may be "frowned" upon. Consequently I've learn't it could be expensive to crossgrade to a three and that it will make my bike slightly heavier. I like the compact cassette solution, but I think I'll hold off until the drivechain needs replacing now. I probably should have worded my starter thread better. Frankly, I don't really care and proof of this is while I ride Cannondale on the road, off road you'll find me riding a pimped Huffy MTB - so there! Thank you all for your practical advice!

From a weight and performance perspective, there are a fair share of cyclists who prefer the double or "compact." YES, it does make climbing hills a little bit more difficult, but on a flat surface the acceleration is slightly quicker until you hit speeds of about 20 mph.

I had this same talk yesterday with a LBS about upgrading to a triple if I didn't like the double; NOT cost-effective. You'll need new shifts, derailleurs, cables, etc.