# Don't Laugh.......I have a triple



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

Apologies if this has been covered before,but.... I purchased my current bike, a Trek 1000SL some 10years ago. At the time it was a fairly decent ally frame with carbon forks,seat stem, decent enough eqpt for the price at a time when carbon bikes were phenomally expensive. As a standard it came with Simano 52/42/30 triple and 11-25 cassette. I rarely (try not to) use the 30 especially as I have changed the rear to 11-28 so hills are do-able in the middle ring although this gearing is still higher than the new compact/semis on the market, so I do occasionally have to drop down in the front, but it feels a bit...........wimping out.

My Q is can I change the 30 to a 34 ? The rear derailleur is already extended to take the longer chain when on the 30, so I'm assuming (always dangerous) that I should be able to change this to a 34 without any issues, were only talking 4 extra teeth ?!

Looking further ahead it is time to upgrade but I LOVE the 42 as it gives me a good range of extra gears. How much difference / benefit would a 52/36 or 50/34 give me if I can't get a new triple ? I know there are triple still out there but they are all appear to be 50/39/30 and I would like to have a 34 as the small ring, could I change that as well ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (20 Jul 2018)

I can't understand why you are contemplating either messing around with the gearing or "upgrading" the bike, if it gives you good service. A ten year old bike is barely run in in my book, mine are at least 25 years old average age. My main ride runs a 48/38/28 triple with a 14-28 six speed freewheel, and most of my riding gets done on the middle ring, with the granny gears being reserved for uphill starts and ultra-steep humpback bridges, and the big ring used for getting the most out of a tailwind.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (20 Jul 2018)

If the ring is replaceable, I can't see any problem going from 30 to 34. 

I wouldn't think about changing from a triple to a double, total waste of money. Don't worry about spares, enough people still ride triples for them to be around a long while yet. In fact I reckon doubles would disappear before triples. Wimping out doesn't come into it, there's nothing wrong riding a triple, the enlightened ones amongst us can vouch for that.


----------



## raleighnut (20 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Apologies if this has been covered before,but.... I purchased my current bike, a Trek 1000SL some 10years ago. At the time it was a fairly decent ally frame with carbon forks,seat stem, decent enough eqpt for the price at a time when carbon bikes were phenomally expensive. As a standard it came with Simano 52/42/30 triple and 11-25 cassette. I rarely (try not to) use the 30 especially as I have changed the rear to 11-28 so hills are do-able in the middle ring although this gearing is still higher than the new compact/semis on the market, so I do occasionally have to drop down in the front, but it feels a bit...........wimping out.
> 
> My Q is can I change the 30 to a 34 ? The rear derailleur is already extended to take the longer chain when on the 30, so I'm assuming (always dangerous) that I should be able to change this to a 34 without any issues, were only talking 4 extra teeth ?!
> 
> ...


Changing the 30 to a 34 will give you 4 *less* teeth for the rear mech to cope with so if you can find a ring with the right BCD you'll be fine.
As for 'dropping' the gearing from a 52 why not fit a cassette with 12 highest gear next time you have to change it.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (20 Jul 2018)

Triples just aren’t fashionable. But who gives a monkeys?

All my bikes have triples. An old knee injury and the local lumps dictate this is best for me and I couldn’t care what the trendies think. They are the same trendies I leave on the steepest of hills gasping for breath, cramping and complaining their knees are sore.

I want to cycle into my twilight years, so triple it is.


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I can't understand why you are contemplating either messing around with the gearing or "upgrading" the bike, if it gives you good service. A ten year old bike is barely run in in my book, mine are at least 25 years old average age. My main ride runs a 48/38/28 triple with a 14-28 six speed freewheel, and most of my riding gets done on the middle ring, with the granny gears being reserved for uphill starts and ultra-steep humpback bridges, and the big ring used for getting the most out of a tailwind.



Hi Skipdiver, don't get me wrong I'm not considering dumping the bike because of any snobbery etc, the cost of owning the bike for 10years is now averaging pennies per year but there are some things on it that need some TLC, there's a bit of play in the headset, some of the teeth are getting a little rounded, one of the wheels is not true anymore (awful roads in my neck of the woods), one of the shifters is bent. None of these are overly expensive but add them all together and its a bit of cash. I can get a nearly new pre-owned bike for not much more. It's amazing the bikes out there that people bought on a whim and simply don't use and want rid off for a fraction of what it cost them. The old bike will be my training bike. Cheers


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

Tail End Charlie said:


> If the ring is replaceable, I can't see any problem going from 30 to 34.
> 
> I wouldn't think about changing from a triple to a double, total waste of money. Don't worry about spares, enough people still ride triples for them to be around a long while yet. In fact I reckon doubles would disappear before triples. Wimping out doesn't come into it, there's nothing wrong riding a triple, the enlightened ones amongst us can vouch for that.



Cheers Tail end Charlie. Think all this compact / semi etc is just fashion, I won't be dropping it just to "fit in" just looking to get a bit better spec on this or the next bike. Up until recently shimano did an ultegra set of shifters which some stockists are looking to get rid off fairly cheapish, just need to know that when the current set-up needs replacing I can. Cheers


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

raleighnut said:


> Changing the 30 to a 34 will give you 4 *less* teeth for the rear mech to cope with so if you can find a ring with the right BCD you'll be fine.
> As for 'dropping' the gearing from a 52 why not fit a cassette with 12 highest gear next time you have to change it.



Hi Raleighnut, cheers for the advice. I did ask the local bike shop if I could get a larger rear cassette than the 11-28, apparently my bike / set up can't, not sure why, but the shop has been good to me (cheap services, good discounts on kids bikes) so I'll take their word for it. I'll check out the BCD and see what is out there. Cheers.


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Triples just aren’t fashionable. But who gives a monkeys?
> 
> All my bikes have triples. An old knee injury and the local lumps dictate this is best for me and I couldn’t care what the trendies think. They are the same trendies I leave on the steepest of hills gasping for breath, cramping and complaining their knees are sore.
> 
> I want to cycle into my twilight years, so triple it is.



Hi Heltor Chasca, same knee injury as mine ?? I'm afraid rugby has curtailed any running now days so cycling is the way forward for me. I'm no way a trendie, one of the bikes I'm looking at is 4 years old and in a local shop. The owner said "you do know this is 4 years old" My response was "does it look any different or do anything extra over this years model ?" Apparently not, so for under half the original RRP I'll happily ride a bike that is last seasons colours.........if I can fit a triple.  Cheers


----------



## KneesUp (20 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> ... As a standard it came with Simano 52/42/30 triple and 11-25 cassette. I rarely (try not to) use the 30 especially as I have changed the rear to 11-28 so hills are do-able in the middle ring although this gearing is still higher than the new compact/semis on the market, so I do occasionally have to drop down in the front, but it feels a bit...........wimping out.
> 
> My Q is can I change the 30 to a 34 ? The rear derailleur is already extended to take the longer chain when on the 30, so I'm assuming (always dangerous) that I should be able to change this to a 34 without any issues, were only talking 4 extra teeth ?!
> 
> ...



I don't really get this either. You have a 52 and a 42, which you use for the majority of your riding, but sometimes you use the 30. I guess this means that when you use the 30, it is because you really need to. So why would you make that a higher gear? If using the correct gear for the terrain and your legs is 'wimping out' then you are doing that whatever gear you use, surely? 

I have a 48/38/28. I used to use the 28 more than I do now, because I am fitter now, but I'm still considering swapping it to a 24 (smallest I can get) because when I need a low gear it's because it's very steep, or I'm very tired, or I have a lot of weight on the bike, so I want my low gears to be as low as I can get them.


----------



## Hugh Manatee (20 Jul 2018)

Funny. I was out riding the other day and I was thinking a triple might be the way to go for me. I was musing on 30-42-50 with a 12-23 or even a 12-21 9 gear cassette. I need to get the calculator out and work the ratios out.

As to the OP, you need to find out if the ring you want is made with the BCD of your chainset. For example, the lowest number of teeth I can have with my chainset is 38. As @raleighnut says, you're going larger so it should work.


----------



## Crackle (20 Jul 2018)

Difficult to say from your post but the impression I get is your shoving around bigger gears than you need to, especially of you've changed the rear cassette.

Perhaps you'd benefit from changing the middle more, say to a 38. I too ride a triple but mine is a 49-38-26. I very rarely leave the 38 and that's with a 12-25 rear and that's good for an average of 14-16mph with an average cadence in the high 70s.


----------



## burntoutbanger (20 Jul 2018)

I've just gone from a 28-38-48 triple to a 24-34-42 triple on my hybrid which is my main commuter. I've a very short commute in but extend, for as long as time allows, on the way home. Fifteen to twenty miles are common, thirty five to forty aren't unheard of.

Seeing as I'm riding after a hard day's work *cough, I don't miss the high gears at all and living in a hilly area the lower bottom gears are most welcome.

Vive la triple!


----------



## Mo1959 (20 Jul 2018)

My Cube Peloton actually has a 50-39-30 triple. Didn't specifically purchase it for that reason, but quite enjoy it and see no need to change.


----------



## matiz (20 Jul 2018)

I ride a Trek triple as well 9 speed tiagra ,ive probably only used the small ring a half a dozen times in eight years, its good knowing it's there if needed, I don't understand the wimping out bit, I've never had any derogatory comments and couldn't care less if I did.


----------



## Rooster1 (20 Jul 2018)

I've run all sorts of rear cassettes with my triple on my Defy


----------



## Sharky (20 Jul 2018)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Triples just aren’t fashionable. But who gives a monkeys?
> 
> All my bikes have triples. An old knee injury and the local lumps dictate this is best for me and I couldn’t care what the trendies think. They are the same trendies I leave on the steepest of hills gasping for breath, cramping and complaining their knees are sore.
> 
> I want to cycle into my twilight years, so triple it is.



So when are the twilight years? I've recently thrown off my double and replaced with single - when do I need to start saving some of my pension to buy a triple?
I did have a triple for a while, about 10 years ago and I did appreciate the gearing on some of the Kentish hills around here, but switched to a 1x10 set for it's simplicity.


----------



## Bazzer (20 Jul 2018)

I don't understand the comment about wimping out by using the inner ring. Both my hybrid and road bikes have triples.
Even if the inner ring is rarely used, it is good to know it is there if needed.
If other people have a problem with you riding a triple, IMHO, it is their problem not yours.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (20 Jul 2018)

Sharky said:


> So when are the twilight years? I've recently thrown off my double and replaced with single - when do I need to start saving some of my pension to buy a triple?
> I did have a triple for a while, about 10 years ago and I did appreciate the gearing on some of the Kentish hills around here, but switched to a 1x10 set for it's simplicity.



I don’t know when my time is up. I guess what I mean is that I am managing an injury through prevention rather than waiting till I smash myself up and have to take up golf instead. Who would want that? (Again!) I would love the simplicity of a 1x setup but needs must I’m afraid. I like the clean look of 1Xs btw.



Bazzer said:


> I don't understand the comment about wimping out by using the inner ring. Both my hybrid and road bikes have triples.
> Even if the inner ring is rarely used, it is good to know it is there if needed.
> If other people have a problem with you riding a triple, IMHO, it is their problem not yours.



I will easily get around a 100km route on the two larger rings. 200+ I need to pace myself by spinning lightly and relying on my cardio vascular engine rather than my uneconomical legs muscles. I spin about in the 90+ RPM region.


----------



## Sharky (20 Jul 2018)

Wouldn't advise golf. A pal I play table tennis with has done his back several times, getting in and out of his buggy with that bag of sticks they have to carry.


----------



## Grant Fondo (20 Jul 2018)

42/32/22 front
11-32 10 sp back

Go LOW or go home


----------



## matiz (20 Jul 2018)

I'm just wondering if fellow cyclists have been stopping@Andy808 and counting the teeth on his small ring and maybe giving him a complex.


----------



## si_c (20 Jul 2018)

@Andy808 The only advantage of moving to a double chainset at the front is a weight saving of about 150g. The advantage of a triple chainset is, increased gear range, and smaller steps between the gears, meaning you can select a gear that suits your legs with greater ease. You won't go up hills any faster, and in fact if it's steep enough you may end up going slower or walking as having a double makes it harder to select a good gear. It's absolutely not wimping out to use the inner ring, as the trend towards wider range cassettes and subcompact gearing indicates. 

In terms of answering your main questions, you could replace the triple crankset with a double crankset easily enough, but it's not going to be cheap. I'm assuming that you currently have 9 speed gearing - although if you have 8 or 10 speed you just need to look for parts that match - if you let us know we can guide you. You will at minimum need a new crankset ~ £70 + new BB ~ £20, and a new Front Shifter - of course if you like them looking the same then you will need a new shifter on both sides ~£120+, and depending the shifters, you may need to replace the front and rear mechs, as Shimano do change how much cable is needed to move the rear derailleurs - and they need to match - this could add another ~£50 or so.

At this point, you may as well just replace the entire groupset - you can get a full Shimano Tiagra 10speed groupset with 50/34 and 11-32 for about £290 from Merlin Cycles - this would at least make everything on your bike nice and pretty, give you the internally routed cables that look nice too. Factor in some bartape too for that totally fresh looking bike.

Edit: If you're interested in comparing the gear ratios, I've done a quick comparison here which you can click on to see the difference. You'll notice that moving to a double and an 11-32 cassette gives you no advantage.


----------



## Jody (20 Jul 2018)

No need to be worried about riding a triple. My knees wish my road bike had triple with some of the hills in the peak district.


----------



## DCBassman (20 Jul 2018)

On the Scott, I'm aiming to change the Ritchey 52-42-30 for a 48-38-28, and the Norco hybrid, which is heavier, will have even lower rings. The Scott has an Alivio long cage mech and is fitted with an 11-34t 8-speed cassette. The hybrid will have the same.
Low gears are where it's at for me. Too old for big gears!


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

matiz said:


> I'm just wondering if fellow cyclists have been stopping@Andy808 and counting the teeth on his small ring and maybe giving him a complex.



Hi Matiz, no no-one is stopping me and taking the piddle. I just feel that since I've been putting some miles in on the bike I've got fitter, got a little faster, shed some timber and now the 30 is getting redundant in all but the most extreme hills, which on a good day I can plod up on the 42 albeit bit of struggle, so maybe changing the 30 for a 34 would be offer bit more of a challenge than the 30 but wouldn't bust my balls whe I try to use the 42. I'm not one to be put off by other cyclists, I easily keep up with the majority of others on their fancy £5k Carbon jobbies, it more of a personal challenge.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Jul 2018)

I used to have a triple ring road bike. Wish I still had it. Someone commented about it being a triple but he didn't ride as much as I did.

I dont think you should care if you have a single/double/triple.


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

si_c said:


> @Andy808 The only advantage of moving to a double chainset at the front is a weight saving of about 150g. The advantage of a triple chainset is, increased gear range, and smaller steps between the gears, meaning you can select a gear that suits your legs with greater ease. You won't go up hills any faster, and in fact if it's steep enough you may end up going slower or walking as having a double makes it harder to select a good gear. It's absolutely not wimping out to use the inner ring, as the trend towards wider range cassettes and subcompact gearing indicates.
> 
> In terms of answering your main questions, you could replace the triple crankset with a double crankset easily enough, but it's not going to be cheap. I'm assuming that you currently have 9 speed gearing - although if you have 8 or 10 speed you just need to look for parts that match - if you let us know we can guide you. You will at minimum need a new crankset ~ £70 + new BB ~ £20, and a new Front Shifter - of course if you like them looking the same then you will need a new shifter on both sides ~£120+, and depending the shifters, you may need to replace the front and rear mechs, as Shimano do change how much cable is needed to move the rear derailleurs - and they need to match - this could add another ~£50 or so.
> 
> ...





si_c said:


> @Andy808 The only advantage of moving to a double chainset at the front is a weight saving of about 150g. The advantage of a triple chainset is, increased gear range, and smaller steps between the gears, meaning you can select a gear that suits your legs with greater ease. You won't go up hills any faster, and in fact if it's steep enough you may end up going slower or walking as having a double makes it harder to select a good gear. It's absolutely not wimping out to use the inner ring, as the trend towards wider range cassettes and subcompact gearing indicates.
> 
> In terms of answering your main questions, you could replace the triple crankset with a double crankset easily enough, but it's not going to be cheap. I'm assuming that you currently have 9 speed gearing - although if you have 8 or 10 speed you just need to look for parts that match - if you let us know we can guide you. You will at minimum need a new crankset ~ £70 + new BB ~ £20, and a new Front Shifter - of course if you like them looking the same then you will need a new shifter on both sides ~£120+, and depending the shifters, you may need to replace the front and rear mechs, as Shimano do change how much cable is needed to move the rear derailleurs - and they need to match - this could add another ~£50 or so.
> 
> ...




Hi si_c, thanks for the comparison chart, I really like how that shows up the two set-ups and I don't see myself going to a double, I merely wanted from a personal challenge to see if changing the 30 to 34 would be worth it. As I've got a fitter, shed some weight and hence got faster the 30 is all but redundant except on a few steep bits which I canstruggle up in the 42 or do fairly comfortably in the 30, so I really wanted to see if changing to a 34 would still enable me to get up some the steeper hills but with just bit more of a challenge. It's purely from a personal point of view rather than bike snobbery or mockery, I think people misunderstood my "wimping out" comment, it's my personally feeling rather than people taking the pee. I will say one thing though as a result of this thread is that there are a lot of people using triples which I wouldn't have thought. Cheers


----------



## si_c (20 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Hi si_c, thanks for the comparison chart, I really like how that shows up the two set-ups and I don't see myself going to a double, I merely wanted from a personal challenge to see if changing the 30 to 34 would be worth it. As I've got a fitter, shed some weight and hence got faster the 30 is all but redundant except on a few steep bits which I canstruggle up in the 42 or do fairly comfortably in the 30, so I really wanted to see if changing to a 34 would still enable me to get up some the steeper hills but with just bit more of a challenge. It's purely from a personal point of view rather than bike snobbery or mockery, I think people misunderstood my "wimping out" comment, it's my personally feeling rather than people taking the pee. I will say one thing though as a result of this thread is that there are a lot of people using triples which I wouldn't have thought. Cheers



Fair enough, I don't think there is anything wrong with a triple, indeed I think most riders would probably benefit once the roads get steeper, using a double seems to be fashionable because it's more "Pro".

As for swapping your inner ring out to a larger one, it's actually quite easy to do, you'll need a crank extractor probably for your chainset (not expensive) and a set of allen keys (also not expensive if you don't already have them). As long as you match the BCD and number of holes on the one you order you should be good to go.

The alternative of course is to just ride one click in.


----------



## boydj (20 Jul 2018)

Fitting a 34 to replace the 30 would just give you more duplication in the gears that you have - and that's if you could get a 34 ring with the right bcd. I look on the 30 on my triple as an extra set of gears for use in an emergency (which seems to happen every time I hit one particular hill).


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

boydj said:


> Fitting a 34 to replace the 30 would just give you more duplication in the gears that you have - and that's if you could get a 34 ring with the right bcd. I look on the 30 on my triple as an extra set of gears for use in an emergency (which seems to happen every time I hit one particular hill).



Ah you have that b'stard hill as well ! I really just want to change it to challenge myself a bit. The 30 has become fairly redundant but there are some hills that I struggle a bit on the 42 but the 30 is a un-challenging. Of course I could just be using my gears wrongly. Is there a cycling for dummies ?


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

Hi bazzer


Bazzer said:


> I don't understand the comment about wimping out by using the inner ring. Both my hybrid and road bikes have triples.
> Even if the inner ring is rarely used, it is good to know it is there if needed.
> If other people have a problem with you riding a triple, IMHO, it is their problem not yours.




Hi Bazzer, my "wimping out" comment was meant to be how I feel not what others were thinking or saying. As I've said to a coulee of others, as I get fitter & faster the 30 is becoming slightly redundant but there are a couple of hills where the 42 kills me but the 30 is easyish. I just wanted to see if changing to a 34 would allow me to get up the steepies but not kill me....sort of a half way house between the 30 & 42. I guess I can always change it back ? Cheers


----------



## Julia9054 (20 Jul 2018)

As there is quite an overlap on a triple, surely you already have a few gears that would be the same as a 34?


----------



## Heltor Chasca (20 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Hi Heltor Chasca, same knee injury as mine ?? I'm afraid rugby has curtailed any running now days so cycling is the way forward for me. I'm no way a trendie, one of the bikes I'm looking at is 4 years old and in a local shop. The owner said "you do know this is 4 years old" My response was "does it look any different or do anything extra over this years model ?" Apparently not, so for under half the original RRP I'll happily ride a bike that is last seasons colours.........if I can fit a triple.  Cheers



Hah! Yes mine was a rugby injury. Running would be great, but it has been a no no for a long time. Swimming or cycling work.


----------



## Apollonius (20 Jul 2018)

A big range of gears is much to be desired. The only objections to triples I am aware of are these
1 Shimano triples are a pain to set up right, and quite difficult to keep in trim.
2. You get some horrendous chain-lines if you are not careful. OK, that isn't the end of the world, but it means less direct effort going to propel the bike and greater chain wear. 

I would not personally feel that I would be under any pressure to ditch a triple for a double to prove my fitness. use what works for you.


----------



## Bazzer (20 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Hi bazzer
> Hi Bazzer, my "wimping out" comment was meant to be how I feel not what others were thinking or saying. As I've said to a coulee of others, as I get fitter & faster the 30 is becoming slightly redundant but there are a couple of hills where the 42 kills me but the 30 is easyish. I just wanted to see if changing to a 34 would allow me to get up the steepies but not kill me....sort of a half way house between the 30 & 42. I guess I can always change it back ? Cheers



As @Julia9054 says, there is some overlap with a triple. I don't know the ratios of your cassette, but I would be surprised if when you did the calculations, or looked here that there was not, even without cross chaining from the 30. For example a 42:21 is the same ratio as a 30:15.
Of course a cheaper alternative might be to find steeper hills as your fitness improves.


----------



## BSOh (20 Jul 2018)

I think you need an n+1


----------



## HLaB (20 Jul 2018)

What's wrong with a Tripple? My commuting Triban is a tripple. I'll probably never use the 30t on the busway but its there and even if it was a 34t I'd still never use it, I prefer the 39t and spinning


----------



## Andy808 (20 Jul 2018)

Yea


Bazzer said:


> As @Julia9054 says, there is some overlap with a triple. I don't know the ratios of your cassette, but I would be surprised if when you did the calculations, or looked here that there was not, even without cross chaining from the 30. For example a 42:21 is the same ratio as a 30:15.
> Of course a cheaper alternative might be to find steeper hills as your fitness improves.




Yeah there are a couple of monster hills I'm eyeing up, one of them gives me the heebeejeebies !!!! Might be best to keep the 30 until that's conquered. Some interesting comments on the triple issue, seems quite a few people still use them, some still wish they had them. Think it's the whole "use what the pros use" that's got everyone using compacts etc.......shame were not all pro cyclists though ?


----------



## Donger (20 Jul 2018)

Without a triple I would never have climbed an Alp. I would never have got through half of the audaxes I've done. I would never have gone cycling in Wales or the Highlands. Yes, I get the odd bit of joshing every now and again about being in the granny ring ...... from people half my size and ten years younger than me ...... and who I am managing to go on long rides through the hills with. I would never be without a triple to fall back on when I need it.


----------



## iandg (20 Jul 2018)

Bazzer said:


> As @Julia9054 says, there is some overlap with a triple. I don't know the ratios of your cassette, but I would be surprised if when you did the calculations, or looked here that there was not, even without cross chaining from the 30. For example a 42:21 is the same ratio as a 30:15.
> Of course a cheaper alternative might be to find steeper hills as your fitness improves.



But how often would you be on the 15 sprocket when you hit the granny ring? Using 9 spd my 6th sprocket is the same as the lowest gear on the middle ring (34x27 - 24x19) - but then I have another 3 lower gears available - a 10" difference in old money giving me a lowest gear of 24x27 - 24". Well worth the extra ring IMO


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (21 Jul 2018)

wicker man said:


> But how often would you be on the 15 sprocket when you hit the granny ring?



You wouldn't. The granny gears are really get you out of trouble gears or for starting on an uphill gradient after being caught at a red traffic light. By the time you need them you are already going to be on the largest couple of cogs on the back running to the middle ring on the front. I tend you use the 28T front ring if I'm already using 38T x 24T (43") to get up a gradient and am forced to stop. I'll drop down to 28T x 24 (32") before I come to a halt and use that to get moving again without having to stand on the pedals. Then I'll change up to 28T x 21T (37") and build up speed in that gear until the ground levels off sufficiently to go back on to the middle ring using 38T x 21T (50"). That way I avoid the need for double changes of front and back gears. I used to think triples were pointless - until I just happened to buy a secondhand bike fitted with one. Most of the time, probably 99.5% of the time, the small ring is redundant, but it saves busting a gut on steep gradients that otherwise might force you to get off and walk up. It can also be useful if you need to go very slowly in heavy traffic and want to maintain some cadence.


----------



## boydj (21 Jul 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Ah you have that b'stard hill as well ! I really just want to change it to challenge myself a bit. The 30 has become fairly redundant but there are some hills that I struggle a bit on the 42 but the 30 is a un-challenging. Of course I could just be using my gears wrongly. Is there a cycling for dummies ?



You could bring the 42 down to a 39, which seems to be the preferred option on newer triples, and that's what I have on my own triple now. That should let you stay on the middle ring on all but the steepest of hills.


----------



## Ian H (21 Jul 2018)

When I'm not on the fixed, I'm on the bike with the triple. 48-38-26, which allows a close ratio 13-26 on the back. 
It makes me laugh when folks want a double so as to look 'pro', then go for a compact and an inner sprocket nearly as big (or sometimes _as_ big) as the small ring.


----------



## Grant Fondo (22 Jul 2018)

Grant Fondo said:


> 42/32/22 front
> 11-32 10 sp back
> 
> Go LOW or go home



Not sure the 22 has ever had the chain on it .... A total waste of time, particularly in Cheshire


----------



## si_c (22 Jul 2018)

Grant Fondo said:


> Not sure the 22 has ever had the chain on it .... A total waste of time, particularly in Cheshire


Take a wander over to Mow Cop.


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jul 2018)

si_c said:


> Take a wander over to Mow Cop.


Or over the Cat & Fiddle to Derbyshire.


----------



## Alan O (22 Jul 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> My main ride runs a 48/38/28 triple with a 14-28 six speed freewheel.


After many years (though the years themselves are certainly part of it), I've settled on exactly the same setup on my tourer (which is my main bike). I don't really care if there's some overlap, and I don't do double-shift changes, as I see my setup as three sets of gearing rather than one wider set. I use the middle ring probably 80% of the time, the big ring on longer downhills or if it's flat and I'm feeling fast (which usually means a tailwind), and the little one on steep hills.

Sometimes an even smaller gear might be nice, but as I don't really climb hills much I don't need it often enough to disrupt what otherwise seems just about perfect for me - the 28 front with the bigger four of the 14-28 block is actually pretty nice.

At the top end, 48 to 14 is plenty. I've probably used it less than half a dozen times this year and only ever on long downhills. It's big enough to get me a bit over 30mph, and that's plenty fast enough for me these days - I look back on some of the much faster downhills of my youth and I realize I was lucky to get away with them.

My other road-ish bike is lighter, has skinny wheels, no mudguards or carrying capacity, and I thought I could set it up to be a faster bike now that my tourer takes most of my load. So I tried 52/42 front and 14-24 rear now that it doesn't have to be so versatile.

I quickly found that was way too highly geared for me, and I've reverted to its original 48/36 front. That's still a plenty fast enough setup for me and it's fun - but if I could only choose one it would have to be a bike with a triple.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (22 Jul 2018)

The triples in the HC stable:

Audax: 50/39/30 11-32
Tourer: 48/36/26 11-32
Cargo: 48/36/26 11-36
MTB: 40/32/22 11-36
Daughter: 52/40/28 13-30


----------



## DCBassman (22 Jul 2018)

My three are:
Scott modified: 52-42-30 Ritchey with 11-34 8-speed (mixed Sora/Alivio)
Norco: 48-38-28 Shimano with 11-32 8-speed (Altus)
Trek 800 Sport: Sun Race 48-38-28 with 13-30 7-speed (Altus)


----------



## Nigelnightmare (22 Jul 2018)

I run a 55-42-30 with a 9-32 capreo 9 speed.
When I'm fresh I'm mainly in the 55-42 even on the hills.
At the end of a 40 mile long ride (or the day after) it's more 42-30 on the same hills.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Jul 2018)

raleighnut said:


> Or over the Cat & Fiddle to Derbyshire.



That is a gentle climb but plenty of steep stuff in Cheshire nevertheless.


----------



## Grant Fondo (22 Jul 2018)

Heltor Chasca said:


> The triples in the HC stable:
> 
> Audax: 50/39/30 11-32
> Tourer: 48/36/26 11-32
> ...


That's a bunch of triples and no mistake


----------



## crazyjoe101 (23 Jul 2018)

My tourer/winter bike has a tripple, my bottom gear is 24/42. Good fun riding uphill in the saddle at normal cadence while everyone else is grinding out of their saddles.


----------



## si_c (23 Jul 2018)

crazyjoe101 said:


> My tourer/winter bike has a tripple, my bottom gear is 24/42.


----------



## Andrew1971 (23 Jul 2018)

I also have a triple on carrera subway one and my recumbent trike.
Andrew


----------



## Halfmanhalfbike (23 Jul 2018)

50-39-30 on my Cannondale with a 26-12 on the back. I'm getting older and don't need to keep up with anybody!.


----------



## Specialeyes (24 Jul 2018)

I'm unashamed to commute on a Colnago Tecnos with a triple* - it's absolutely unstoppable and a massive hoot to ride. Should the lightest thoroughbred frame Colnago ever made be carrying 150g of extra weight? Pfffft - who cares - just ride whatever works and enjoy it. I see plenty of folks with more 'pro' setups walking up hills or bursting their knees.

It's not a granny ring or bail-out gear, it's just another set of ratios to use.

_*and some weeds to take care of, now I look at the photo!_


----------



## freiston (25 Jul 2018)

I would never laugh at a triple. If you want to compare sprocket/chainwheel combinations that you have with combinations that you don't have, try www.gear-calculator.com - here's my gearing (on the web page, you can drag the chainwheel and sprockets along the slider to the tooth count of your choice and see the change that it makes - you can also create two set-ups to compare side by side):


----------



## HLaB (25 Jul 2018)

I remember going up the Galibier in the middle of the Marmotte with my mate who had a tripple. I had tripple envy


----------



## ColinJ (25 Jul 2018)

freiston said:


> If you want to compare sprocket/chainwheel combinations that you have with combinations that you don't have, try www.gear-calculator.com


I like that!

PS But having played with it, I think that we should be able to set our own limits. For example - I was riding up a very steep hill at 5 km/hr the other day in a 28/30 gear and I wondered what my cadence was but I can't lower the cadence far enough to see that speed. I worked around it by finding the cadence that gave me 10 km/hr and halved it. (84 rpm -> 10 km/hr so 42 rpm -> 5 km/hr.)

PPS I have just discovered that the setup is SUPPOSED to allows the limits to be changed ... Unfortunately, it doesn't work in Firefox and Chrome on my laptop. I don't normally use IE, but found that setup DID work on that. Aaargh - no it doesn't! There is something odd going on but I am not getting any warnings or error messages so I don't know what.


----------



## freiston (25 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I like that!
> 
> PS But having played with it, I think that we should be able to set our own limits. For example - I was riding up a very steep hill at 5 km/hr the other day in a 28/30 gear and I wondered what my cadence was but I can't lower the cadence far enough to see that speed. I worked around it by finding the cadence that gave me 10 km/hr and halved it. (84 rpm -> 10 km/hr so 42 rpm -> 5 km/hr.)
> 
> PPS I have just discovered that the setup is SUPPOSED to allows the limits to be changed ... Unfortunately, it doesn't work in Firefox and Chrome on my laptop. I don't normally use IE, but found that setup DID work on that. Aaargh - no it doesn't! There is something odd going on but I am not getting any warnings or error messages so I don't know what.


That's strange - I just tried all sliders and also setting the minimum cadence to '20' in Firefox and Chromium (open source version of Chrome) on a Linux Mint 17 machine and everything worked fine.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Jul 2018)

freiston said:


> That's strange - I just tried all sliders and also setting the minimum cadence to '20' in Firefox and Chromium (open source version of Chrome) on a Linux Mint 17 machine and everything worked fine.


I'm on Windows 7 on this old laptop! Hang on, I'll try it on my new Windows 10 machine ... (I love the keyboard on the old machine so I tend to use it for the forum because I do a lot of typing.)


----------



## ColinJ (25 Jul 2018)

Nope - it doesn't work properly on that either in Chrome, _or _Edge!


----------



## freiston (26 Jul 2018)

Maybe it's a Windows thing 

Edit: I have a laptop that has Win10 loaded onto it and I just tried the calculator as per my earlier post (changing cadence lower limit to '20' etc.) in IE, Chrome and Firefox - worked in all three.


----------



## Tigerbiten (26 Jul 2018)

It works fine for me.

But I cannot get it to show my forth chainring as it limits it to 99 teeth.
55t + HSD = 137.5 teeth.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Jul 2018)

Hmm ... I'd like to get it working properly so I'll see if I can work out what the problem is.

It is fine generally, but even with my low-geared triple, my cadence on 25% climbs is below the default minimum. (Before anybody else gets in - yes, the problem is with my fitness, not the calculator - ha ha! )


----------



## freiston (26 Jul 2018)

Tigerbiten said:


> It works fine for me.
> 
> But I cannot get it to show my forth chainring as it limits it to 99 teeth.
> 55t + HSD = 137.5 teeth.


Schlumpf?


----------



## gilespargiter (26 Jul 2018)

Not sure what the trouble is with the gear charts you are using but here is one you can have for your very own selves in gear inches. It is in excel format and if you use it as such you can enter the wheel and tyre sizes for precise answers. Don't worry to much though - the difference between mtb 26" and old fashioned 27" is very slight and encompasses 700 - 650 etc.
Knowing your gears in inches relates to any bike with any wheel size and gives you a measurement you know the "feel" of on any bike.

I always ride triples here in Wales and I love hill climbing (luckily - or needs must :-) ) I at the present use bikes with 52-40-28 or 48-38-28 chain rings with 11 or 12 to 32 cassettes. This gives me a cor-blighme top gear of 128" - that I can just about pull for around a mile on a flat road, about 30 odd mph for a decent cadence. To a 23" bottom gear, which means their are no hills I can't ride up when loaded with clothes, lunch and repair kit, including the one from Harlech rail level crossing across the upper high street and thence to the top - said to be the steepest continueous pitch in the UK - including Bean- nearg(?) in Scotland, which I have also ridden several times.

However when I'am carrying camping kit or when at the end of a ride I can occasionally be defeated and thus I'am contemplating going to a granny of 26 or 24 teeth - thus achieving around a 19-20" bottom gear. I use steel rings for the granny and prefer steel for the middle ring, they last three or four times as long as aluminium rings and are well worth the extra 1/2oz or so. I tend to rip the teeth out by the roots on small aluminium grannies.
If the cycle industry persists in making cassettes last less and less miles - as they are, I shall very likely have a local motorcycle sprocket maker produce a seven speed cassette with proper hardened steel 3/32" sprockets for me. This will be cheaper and more reliable.

Also I find that with wide range double chain rings the range change (as with lorries) comes at a very awkward point in the gear range. You will find that in traffic or fairly steep switch back roads you are forever up and down the range change as well as the rear sprockets.


----------



## Tigerbiten (27 Jul 2018)

I've also tried to maximize my gear range.
Plus I've tried to make the difference in size between my chainrings an exact step between my Rohloff gears.
A Rohloff has a 13.6% step between gears. 
3 gears gives you a 44.6% step between chainrings. 
A 130mm BCD means a small chainring of 38 teeth. 
38 x 1.446 = 55.7 teeth. 
I've a 55t chainring because the 56t is to big to fit with my chain guard.
So I've 14 gears with my Rohloff plus 7 more due to the Schlumpf drive plus a final 3 with the chainrings.
This is 24 unique gears with ~13.6% step between gears for a total range of 1,890%.

Nothing beats pedalling slowly downhill in top gear at 40 mph .........


----------



## Andy808 (29 Jul 2018)

A big thanks to all those that posted with useful and insightful info on the triple saga. I will be keeping the triple set-up and just tweeting the rings until I get what I feel comfortable with. If or when a new bike arrives I'll be getting a triple for that as well. One thing of interest from this thread though is that triples most certainly are not dead and a lot of people still use them and a lot people wish they had them, which begs the question why the big manufacturers are not really making them anymore ?? There's definitely a market out there. Cheers everyone.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I'm on Windows 7 on this old laptop! Hang on, I'll try it on my new Windows 10 machine ... (I love the keyboard on the old machine so I tend to use it for the forum because I do a lot of typing.)



Swap keyboards between your machines


----------



## ColinJ (29 Jul 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> Swap keyboards between your machines


They are both laptops so the keyboards are built-in!

I have actually sorted out one of the three major problems with the Win 10 machine's keyboard. The spacebar was not working properly from the day I bought it - only about 2/3 of spaces appeared in what I was typing. That might not be a big deal with (say) the 'z' key (typing English) but who could put up with a 33% failure rate with spaces! It turned out that one end of a metal rod under the spacebar was not clipped in properly. I fixed that and it is perfect now. 

The second thing that annoys me is a stupidly small right shift key with the up arrow key to the left of it. I frequently press the up arrow instead of shift so I end up inserting a lowercase letter a line above where I intended to insert an uppercase letter. I read about a bodge which might alleviate that problem but am yet to try it (swap the key assignments and keycaps). 

The final problem might be harder to fix. For some unknown reason Lenovo put a power button on the keyboard where the delete key should be! The delete key is one key to the left. Fortunately, a power-off delay is built in so I realise that I have hit the wrong key before I accidentally power down the machine, but it still interrupts the flow of my typing.

My final gripe is that the Lenovo keyboard feels like I am tapping a dead fish, whereas the Dell feels almost as nice as my favourite desktop keyboards used to feel! 

None of this would matter very much if I had the computer on a desk because I could just use my rather nice Bluetooth keyboard. Unfortunately, my DVT-ravaged left leg now complains bitterly if I sit normally at tables or desks for more than a few minutes. I'll have to find a combination of chair and footrest that enable me to sit in comfort at my desk again. For now, my laptop _IS_ a laptop. (Well, strictly it sits on top of one of those laptop trays that have a little beanbag attached underneath.)

How did we get onto all of this ...?  Oh yes, I can't get that gear calculator to work properly - I'll add it to my todo list...


----------



## FishFright (29 Jul 2018)

Tigerbiten said:


> I've also tried to maximize my gear range.
> Plus I've tried to make the difference in size between my chainrings an exact step between my Rohloff gears.
> A Rohloff has a 13.6% step between gears.
> 3 gears gives you a 44.6% step between chainrings.
> ...



Now be really brave and add up the cost ! Nah not really because once something has been paid for it's essentially free*

*irrational numbers are the key to advanced man maths.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (29 Jul 2018)

FishFright said:


> once something has been paid for it's essentially free*
> 
> *irrational numbers are the key to advanced man maths.



Not really free, but It becomes water under the bridge because if you just pay for stuff outright, you aren't constantly reminded of the cost every time a monthly repayment falls due.
The other aspect is that if you buy stuff that doesn't tend to depreciate heavily (maybe because it's already secondhand when you get it), you can then rationalise it on the basis that what you've actually done is bought an asset rather than just spent money that you won't see again.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Jul 2018)

FishFright said:


> *irrational numbers are the key to advanced man maths.


Nah the key to advanced maths is to leave numbers behind.


----------



## the snail (30 Jul 2018)

I think if you want to deprive yourself of the lowest gears, the best option would be to go for a closer ratio cassette, which gives the advantage of closer ratios and less overlap. Also increasing the size of the granny ring could cause problems because the FD will need a minimum difference between rings, and you might find you can't set it up without the FD fouling the chainring.


----------



## GuyBoden (30 Jul 2018)

I have triples on two bikes, they're great when your legs have given up on a long ride and there are still some steep bits to ride.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (30 Jul 2018)

Would it be bad form to confess I considered using my granny ring in Saturday’s gusts? On the flat! I also had to pedal hard down hill.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2018)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Would it be bad form to confess I considered using my granny ring in Saturday’s gusts? On the flat! I also had to pedal hard down hill.


Apparently it is bad form to call it a '_granny_' ring now. I had a think about it and decided that I will call mine the '_grovelling_' ring in future! 

I have had to use a grovelling gear to get down a hill before now.

I once read about a touring cyclist who had to abandon an attempt to ride down a 20% slope on the coast of Patagonia - even his lowest grovelling gear was not enough to fight the vicious headwind!


----------



## si_c (30 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> Apparently it is bad form to call it a '_granny_' ring now. I had a think about it and decided that I will call mine the '_grovelling_' ring in future!
> 
> I have had to use a grovelling gear to get down a hill before now.
> 
> I once read about a touring cyclist who had to abandon an attempt to ride down a 20% slope on the coast of Patagonia - even his lowest grovelling gear was not enough to fight the vicious headwind!


Not to mention that if people start talking about getting into their granny ring it could result in unfounded charges of elder abuse.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2018)

si_c said:


> Not to mention that if people start talking about getting into their granny ring it could result in unfounded charges of elder abuse.


----------



## Dave7 (31 Jul 2018)

Just noticed this thread so am "late to the party".
When I had my (Ribble) road bike built I chose a triple and enjoyed it.
When that was stolen I bought a Giant carbon but paid to have a bigger cog at the back to help me up the hills and have never regretted it.


----------



## User16625 (4 Aug 2018)

Andy808 said:


> Apologies if this has been covered before,but.... I purchased my current bike, a Trek 1000SL some 10years ago. At the time it was a fairly decent ally frame with carbon forks,seat stem, decent enough eqpt for the price at a time when carbon bikes were phenomally expensive. As a standard it came with Simano 52/42/30 triple and 11-25 cassette. I rarely (try not to) use the 30 especially as I have changed the rear to 11-28 so hills are do-able in the middle ring although this gearing is still higher than the new compact/semis on the market, so I do occasionally have to drop down in the front, but it feels a bit...........wimping out.
> 
> My Q is can I change the 30 to a 34 ? The rear derailleur is already extended to take the longer chain when on the 30, so I'm assuming (always dangerous) that I should be able to change this to a 34 without any issues, were only talking 4 extra teeth ?!
> 
> ...



I won't laugh if you won't.............I've got a Ceepo. (lol!). No it's not some sort of Chinese sex toy or a moon of Neptune. It's this. Bizarre name for a bike. Never even heard of the make until I bought it. After searching online and in several shops, it was the only bike of that type I could find with a threaded BB. Under my budget too and it rides great! The tech specs seem to say it's got a PF30, but this one has a threaded one, it has the notches for the hollowtech BB tool and also the rotational arrows in which to tighten it. No idea whats going on there. Got a feelin its gonna be some kind of weird hybrid press-threaded doolali bearing when I need to replace it


----------



## gilespargiter (7 Aug 2018)

si_c said:


> Not to mention that if people start talking about getting into their granny ring it could result in unfounded charges of elder abuse.



There is a certain headland on the N.Wales cycle path that I have rounded in the teeth of Westerly gales and changed into the granny to cycle down a few times now.
Personally, I could'nt care less if some egotistical idiot were to break into inane laughter because of it - not that most of them would have enough backbone to be abroad in such weather anyway!


----------



## craigwend (7 Aug 2018)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I won't laugh if you won't.............I've got a Ceepo. (lol!). No it's not some sort of Chinese sex toy or a moon of Neptune. It's this. Bizarre name for a bike. Never even heard of the make until I bought it. After searching online and in several shops, it was the only bike of that type I could find with a threaded BB. Under my budget too and it rides great! The tech specs seem to say it's got a PF30, but this one has a threaded one, it has the notches for the hollowtech BB tool and also the rotational arrows in which to tighten it. No idea whats going on there. Got a feelin its gonna be some kind of weird hybrid press-threaded doolali bearing when I need to replace it



some interesting bikes on their website






Ps ~ 3 bikes = 3 triples


----------

