# Allez '09 - dble or triple?



## Westwardbound (2 Aug 2008)

I've re-assessed my requirements and am going for a road bike. Found a shop with stock(!) and I'm test riding an Allez '09 (Large) this afternoon (hope the rain keeps off). If I like it I will be buying/ordering. 

Should I go for a double or pay about £30 more for a triple? I don't see myself hill-climbing but do live in Bath which has some decent gradients.

What do you think? I'm leaving at 2pm so any views will be well received! Thanks.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Aug 2008)

A gentleman is one who knows how to ride a triple, but doesn't.


----------



## Moonlight (2 Aug 2008)

Double.

Triple is for those things with the big tires....ewww..


----------



## stoatsngroats (2 Aug 2008)

Westwardbound said:


> but do live in Bath which has some decent gradients.


if your lowest gear on a double only gets used occasionally, and the lowest on a triple even less, would you rather do without the triple, and walk....?

I'd take the triple....


----------



## toontra (2 Aug 2008)

I take great pleasure when on sportives in cycling past people with double (or compact) chainsets who are walking up the steepest hills. This happens often. With my triple I _never_ walk.

If in any doubt, get a triple. Those who snub triples are either:

1) Very fit
2) Rarely ride steep hills
3) Bike snobs
4) Weight over function victims


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Aug 2008)

toontra said:


> I take great pleasure when on sportives in cycling past people with double (or compact) chainsets who are walking up the steepest hills. This happens often. With my triple I _never_ walk.
> 
> If in any doubt, get a triple. Those who snub triples are either:
> 
> ...


Or those who have been cycling since 42*19 was the standard bottom gear and you changed to a 21 sprocket when you visited the really hilly terrain.


----------



## kyuss (2 Aug 2008)

I guess I'm a bit of a bike snob but I like my road bikes to look like road bikes, not something with MTB bits bolted on to encourage laziness.

If a 4 stone overweight smoker like me can lug his fat arse up and down the hills round Edinburgh on a 39x25 without too much trouble I can't see why anyone would need a triple unless doing long steep mountain climbs, and that's what compacts and big cassettes are for.

Anyway, big hills aren't meant to be easy. There would be no sense of achievement if they were.


----------



## Moonlight (2 Aug 2008)

toontra said:


> I take great pleasure when on sportives in cycling past people with double (or compact) chainsets who are walking up the steepest hills. This happens often. With my triple I _never_ walk.
> 
> If in any doubt, get a triple. Those who snub triples are either:
> 
> ...



I'll self nominate myself for 1)


----------



## numbnuts (2 Aug 2008)

triple think of your knees


----------



## andy_wrx (2 Aug 2008)

The Allez double is a 50/34 compact IIRC, the triple a 50/39/30
Both have 12-25 cassette.

So it's not a choice between standard double and triple, it's between compact and triple.
Not actually that much difference between bottom gearing.


----------



## Westwardbound (2 Aug 2008)

Thanks everyone for your advice - both content and speed. I'm just back having bought and brought back with me an Allez '09 Triple. As I think someone said, if you don't know or have to ask, get a Triple. Whilst I try to kid myself I'm reasonably fit, I doubt that I really am so any extra help I can get I should take!

Off out for a short ride a bit later. Thanks again.


----------



## toontra (2 Aug 2008)

Good move. There are some bloody steep hills in Bath, especially on the north side.

There aren't really any disadvantages of a triple apart from the minimal extra weight and being a bit more fiddly to set up the front derailleur (the shop will sort out any problems on your 3-month service anyway).

Congrats!


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Aug 2008)

numbnuts said:


> triple think of your knees


Internet myth.


----------



## numbnuts (2 Aug 2008)

> Originally Posted by *numbnuts*
> 
> 
> _triple think of your knees_





Smokin Joe said:


> Internet myth.


when your old like me you'll have a triple


----------



## alecstilleyedye (2 Aug 2008)

know your riding style. if you like to grind up gradients in a big gear, the compact should suit fine. if you prefer to spin a low gear up them, get the triple.

it's largely a matter of choice and physiology - i spin, so does lance armstrong. i know other as good or better cyclists that grind, and plenty of pros do to. if you can make the decision based on how you ride, it will be a better one that one based on snobbery or what suits someone else.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2008)

toontra said:


> I take great pleasure when on sportives in cycling past people with double (or compact) chainsets who are walking up the steepest hills. This happens often. With my triple I _never_ walk.
> 
> If in any doubt, get a triple. Those who snub triples are either:
> 
> ...



no prizes for guessing who on this thread not only fits into, but is the definition of, (3)...


----------



## Tynan (2 Aug 2008)

I've used the small end of a triple once ever, Ditchling Beacon when knackered and with tossers walking all over the road

Apart from that I've never got off the big one in London, granted there's hills out there that I've never seen


----------



## Steve Austin (2 Aug 2008)

I don't see the point in in triples for on the road, unless its for touring. A compact double (50/34) is fine.

There is nothing wrong with riding a triple, its just very unnecessary on the road


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2008)

compacts result in a bad chainline most of the time


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Aug 2008)

bonj said:


> compacts result in a bad chainline most of the time


Nonsense.

It's only a double with smaller rings and if you choose your ratios sensibly your chainline will not be a problem.


----------



## coldash (2 Aug 2008)

Good move getting the triple. I can't get on with the jump in ratios when changing between the 50 and the 34 chain rings on a compact. I have 52 and 42 (as well as a 30) chain rings on my triple and, on a 16 rear cog, the ratio changes from 88 to 71 for the 52/42 rings. On a compact, the ratio change is 84 to 57. I can't be bothered having to change over a couple of rear cogs to compensate for the gap when using a compact. 

I can't really see the point of compacts. If you need the low ratios (and I do), you might as well get a triple and enjoy the more useful ratio gaps when changing between chain rings.


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

*


Steve Austin said:



I don't see the point in in triples for on the road, unless its for touring. A compact double (50/34) is fine.

There is nothing wrong with riding a triple, its just very unnecessary on the road

Click to expand...

*

This,without wishing to appear rude,has got to be one of the least informed and more absurd statements of so called advice I have heard on the eternal double/triple 'debate'.Knowing next to nothing about the OP's age/fitness/health/intended useage you feel qualified to make the above statement?.
I see he has bought a triple.I have no idea whether he 'needs' a triple or not [and neither does he] but in future why not try at least to have some *reasoned and informed* discussion when someone like Weswardbound asks for advice



PS.I learned,on another forum,that in the not too distant past triple chainsets were 'employed' by a few riders on some of the mountain stages of the Tour de France.*In the Tour de France FFS* !!!.By the elite of elite in road cycling !!!!.
But some people on cycling forums would consider them wimps,eh ?!!!


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Aug 2008)

Triples have indeed been used by the pros, but not because they climb faster with a granny gear. On the mountain stages they are sometimes used in the wet because the lower gears keep the back tyre from spinning up on the steeper sections. The Giro is the main event where teams have a supply of triples standing by for this reason, as some of the gradients can be 20% and there is often snow on the higher passes.


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

Smokin Joe said:


> Triples have indeed been used by the pros, but not because they climb faster with a granny gear. On the mountain stages they are sometimes used in the wet because the lower gears keep the back tyre from spinning up on the steeper sections. The Giro is the main event where teams have a supply of triples standing by for this reason, as some of the gradients can be 20% and there is often snow on the higher passes.




Your point being ? [in regard to Westwardbounds' doubts re triple/double and Steve Austins 'advice'].
Listen,if ANY pro rider,at ANY time chooses to use a triple its because he thinks it will help him cycle more efficiently.And these are guys that,using only one leg,could leave Steve Austin for dead !.
The wannabee racers on cycling forums,*in the BEGINNERS sections of cycling forums*,offering advice that triples are " just very unnecessary on the road" without taking anything other than their own prejudices and insecurities into account are helping nobody.Use whatever gears *you* need, to enjoy* your* cycling.Why is this so difficult for some people to accept?.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Aug 2008)

My point being that they use triples to stop the back tyre spinning in the wet on the steeper slopes, exactly what I said in fact. 

As for offering advice, people can offer any advice they feel appropriate to the question. There will also be someone with a counter argument and it is up to the person who posted the question to follow that which they think suits them. You triple people do get rather tetchy when people disagree with you.


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

Smokin Joe said:


> My point being that they use triples to stop the back tyre spinning in the wet on the steeper slopes, exactly what I said in fact.
> 
> As for offering advice, people can offer any advice they feel appropriate to the question. There will also be someone with a counter argument and it is up to the person who posted the question to follow that which they think suits them. You triple people do get rather tetchy when people disagree with you.



Ah well,one can but try to enter into a reasoned debate.But I had a niggling feeling it would end up sidestepping the original intent of Westardbounds dilemma and totally ignore,as usual,the type of non-sense,one-size-fits-all 'advice' offered up. 
Lest there be any doubts about what we are talking about I offer again the advice give by Steve Austin :

*Originally Posted by Steve Austin View Post
I don't see the point in in triples for on the road, unless its for touring. A compact double (50/34) is fine.

There is nothing wrong with riding a triple, its just very unnecessary on the road
*


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Aug 2008)

I seem to have rattled your cage somewhat. The thing about opinions is everyone is entitled to one. 

I think triples are unnecessary on the road. They are unnecessary offroad ime as well. I would even do so far as to suggest triples are unnecessary for touring, but of course i'm not entitled to suggest that. Happy riding


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Aug 2008)

Anyway Water, do you think Triples should be the suggested for all roadbikes? I think thats what you are suggesting


----------



## dodgy (3 Aug 2008)

An excellent compromise is a compact chainset (50/34) with a 12/27 on the back. Anything's got to be better than destroying the aesthetics of a beautiful road bike 

Dave.


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

*


Steve Austin said:



I seem to have rattled your cage somewhat. The thing about opinions is everyone is entitled to one. 

I think triples are unnecessary on the road. They are unnecessary offroad ime as well. I would even do so far as to suggest triples are unnecessary for touring, but of course i'm not entitled to suggest that. Happy riding 

Click to expand...

*
It would take better than you to rattle my cage.And,whether tongue in cheek or not,most reasonable people reading the above will make up their own minds about its value in the context of which we are speaking [ie not * your* needs,or Steve Austins]


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Aug 2008)

Have you got an opinion why a triple is the right thing or are just sniping at my opinion>

what validity has your sniping got in beginners?


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> Have you got an opinion why a triple is the right thing or are just sniping at my opinion>
> 
> what validity has your sniping got in beginners?



Read the whole thread and,who knows,you may see what my 'complaint' is!!


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Aug 2008)

Water, your only contribution to this thread is to dis-agree with my suggestion.

*What is your opinion?* You have yet to give one...

if you are only intent on sniping others opinions without giving one yourself then maybe you would be better off in 'politics and life' not beginners


----------



## Tim Bennet. (3 Aug 2008)

The belief that a triple is 'unnecessary' is a widely held view. 

I just wish the followers of this dogma wouldn't hold mass meetings to share their beliefs on so many hilly rides such as the Phil Liggett or Fred Whitton. It's really hard to cycle past when they're walking all over the road pushing their exotic machines and mumbling their mantra "triples are unnecessary, triples are unnecessary, triples . . . . ."

However, it's the compact and wide spaced rear cassette that are the true abominations. A marketing ploy to exploit the vanity of the masses. Why anyone would champion such a mishmash of awkwardly spaced gears is beyond me. And it's not that no one can tell it's not a real road set up; compact chainsets and dinnerplate rear sprockets can be spotted at exactly the same distance as a triple. But at least the triple riders have preserved a decent set of road ratios and convenient changes, simply adding an extra 'bail out' option. The compact, like all compromises, is a mish mash jack of all trades and master of none.


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> Water, your only contribution to this thread is to dis-agree with my suggestion.
> 
> *What is your opinion?* You have yet to give one...
> 
> if you are only intent on sniping others opinions without giving one yourself then maybe you would be better off in 'politics and life' not beginners




Jeez, it's pretty obvious I would have thought.Read what I have written.No, I don't advocate triples for everyone Smokin Joe.Thats the whole point.I'm off to work now .Have fun


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Aug 2008)

What a valid contribution you have made to this thread Water


----------



## numbnuts (3 Aug 2008)

> I think triples are unnecessary on the road


Try riding up hills with emphysema it’s a triple and riding or ending up a couch potato


----------



## Westwardbound (3 Aug 2008)

I'm sorry for (re-?)starting what is clearly a bone of contention amongst the cognisenti ! I think I can see both sides of the argument/discussion, but all I can usefully say is that I have really enjoyed both rides I have had so far - about 5 miles last night with my youngest daughter at almost walking pace (she is a novice cyclist, not having cycled more than "round the square" - about 100m - in one go before), and 12 miles in an hour's session this morning. My first times on a bike in 20 years. And I suppose that's all that really matters.


----------



## toontra (3 Aug 2008)

Glad you're enjoying it! As has been said, if in doubt get a triple (especially if you're new to cycling). It's not only the "how low can you go" gears that you benefit from - the gearing is generally spaced better overall.

As I said, there aren't any downsides apart from minor ones of weight and setup. No-one has put forward a good case against them, other that "they look a bit crap". Bike snobbery at its worst IMO.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Aug 2008)

toontra said:


> Glad you're enjoying it! As has been said, if in doubt get a triple (especially if you're new to cycling). It's not only the "how low can you go" gears that you benefit from - the gearing is generally spaced better overall.
> 
> As I said, there aren't any downsides apart from minor ones of weight and setup. No-one has put forward a good case against them, other that "they look a bit crap". Bike snobbery at its worst IMO.


Not so. Much of the sneering at triples comes not because people have anything against them, but because when ever the subject comes up we have to put up with the scathing rubbish about "exploding knees" and "walking up hills while those in the know ride gaily past us".

If anyone wants a triple then by all means get one, but many of us get by quite nicely on a double or even a single without any detriment to our health or speed.


----------



## fossyant (3 Aug 2008)

53 x 39 front and a 13 x 21 rear - and I live on the edge of the Pennines.

And that's dropping from a 42 to a 39 in more recent years due to age !

Depends upon your style - the 39 x 21 will get me up everything, but I'm a grinder - I've climbed the Snake with Longers on his 25 - he was sat down and riding a good rpm, and I was out of the saddle for ages - no real advantage to either of us - it's a personal style. The pro's spin the gears up the mountains though !


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Aug 2008)

The pros spin the gears up the mountains alright, but they spin 39*19 or 21, not 28*32


----------



## water (3 Aug 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> What a valid contribution you have made to this thread Water



Right,just in from work and apologise for the 'brevity' of the last couple of posts I made this morning before having to rush out.
Yes,I have made a valid contribution I believe,certainly more valid than yours.The simple point I was trying to make,unsuccessfully it seems,was the unhelpfullnes of your blanket statement '*triples are just unnecessary on the road*' comment [and similar stuff from others] *to someone you know nothing about and who was unsure of what gearing he should go for*.What is it about this that is so hard to grasp and accept?.You never asked him any questions about his fitness/age/health/aims etc yet confidently dismiss a triple chainset as unnecessary not just for you,which is fine by me, but for him too and apparently the entire cycling population![Or was that last bit one of Smokin Joes pearls of wisdom?].The implication seemingly being that triples are for wimps.This is riding a bike we are talking about here.You know,getting out in the fresh air and enjoying the countryside and a bit of excercise.I don't hold out any hope that you or Smokin Joe will actually think about this and agree we are all different and that 'one size does *not* fit all'.
But who knows....................

PS.Just as my cage has not been rattled I genuinely have no wish to rattle anyone elses.


----------



## toontra (4 Aug 2008)

Smokin Joe said:


> Not so. Much of the sneering at triples comes not because people have anything against them, but because when ever the subject comes up we have to put up with the scathing rubbish about "exploding knees" and "walking up hills while those in the know ride gaily past us".
> 
> If anyone wants a triple then by all means get one, but many of us get by quite nicely on a double or even a single without any detriment to our health or speed.




I see you totally ignored the content of my post that you quoted. How about quitting the bitching are directly address my point - apart from a small amount of extra weight and the setting up, what is there against a triple? I've stated the plusses - higher/lower gears and a better gear spread. Now you state the minuses and maybe we'll get somewhere.

When I made my original post I bore in mind the actual OP's requirements and situation - i.e. effectively a "new" cyclist living in a town with very steep hills. You seem to have ignored this and merely trotted out your personal preference (prejudice).

BTW, bear in mind we're in the beginners section.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (4 Aug 2008)

i no longer count myself a beginner and am happy to keep the triple as it gives me gears to spin up hills, gears to pound along the flat at 30mph, and everything in between. the extra weight is negligible (if i was that fussy i'd diet properly), and if i was worried about looking uncool on a triple, i would also have to contend with my age etc and would never get anywhere.
as a tubby bloke in lycra is uncool regardless of the number of chainrings, i went for function as form made no difference.
horses, as they say, for courses.


----------



## Smeggers (4 Aug 2008)

toontra said:


> I see you totally ignored the content of my post that you quoted. How about quitting the bitching are directly address my point - apart from a small amount of extra weight and the setting up, what is there against a triple? I've stated the plusses - higher/lower gears and a better gear spread. Now you state the minuses and maybe we'll get somewhere.
> 
> When I made my original post I bore in mind the actual OP's requirements and situation - i.e. effectively a "new" cyclist living in a town with very steep hills. You seem to have ignored this and merely trotted out your personal preference (prejudice).
> 
> BTW, bear in mind we're in the beginners section.


The minus' are its "image" was what he was trying to say.


----------

