Do I really need a triple???

[Landslide]

...was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple he only had a double in stock, and couldn't be @rsed ordering in a triple...

 

[Smokin Joe]

Triple all the way.

I even fitted a smaller granny ring to mine!

I cant see any point in not having one.

Mostly I am on the middle ring which gives a nice range for 90% of my cycling. My concern with a double is that the big ring will be too big and the small to small so I will want to keep double changing from big to small and then compensating on the back.

I like my front gears to be basically stepped to be about equal to a couple of back gears so I can go over easily. Double seem to have too big a jump.

Gearing is personal.

My 50/36 with a 13*26 cassette gets me up anything and I only use the 26 sprocket on a vicious 25% gradient I sometimes climb. For anything less I never go below the 23.

The winter bike has the same cassette but with a 48/34 combo on the front. You can only ever advise people on what gears to use based on what you know about their riding, there are no hard and fast rules.

 

[tyred]

Personal choice and depends on the terrain you intend to ride on but if you think you might need it, now is the time rather than to be wasting time and money trying to fit one later.

Personally, I think I would be happy enough with the double but that's my choice. At the end of the day, it's the range of gears that count, not the number. If the lowest gear available on the double is low enough, you don't really need a triple.

 

[piedwagtail91]

i'd say get a triple. you may be able to get up most climbs round here on a double, but it's not so much the short steep climbs that are the problem, something like bowland knotts or tatham or even the trough to jubilee tower can be too much for the bottom gear of a double if you're going into a strong headwind. a lower gear on the triple will allow you a ride thats just that bit easier and let you stay seated longer up a long drag.
both mine and my sons bikes have triples with close ratio cassettes.which i find is a lot better than a widely spaced cassette witha double.

 

[numbnuts]

Let the train take the strain
train as in "gear train"

 

[Ivan Ardon]

I have a 2009 Allez Triple. It's a nice light bike with no real vices so far as I can tell.

Bottom gear is 25 inches, low enough for the steepest Devon hill I've encountered.

Transmission is a mixture of Tiagra and Sora. The Sora shifters work well enough but not being able to change down while on the drops (unless you have fingers like E.T.) may annoy you. It doesn't worry me too much as I mostly ride on the hoods.

Overall, it's a lot of bike for the money.

 

[BentMikey]

I don't see anything wrong with a triple, especially when they go past some c*&t on a double walking up the hill.

Then again, there's little as satisfying as passing a geared rider uphill when you're on a fixed wheel.

 

[ASC1951]

Don't forget there is some bike industry faddism going on as well.

When I were a lad all you could get was a 52x42 and we all managed. Then doubles were for idiots and you had to have a triple no matter what sort of riding you were doing. Now they try to flog us Compact Doubles because triples are old hat...

I have triples, a double and a fixed. If I had to go for one only I would definitely choose a triple for general riding.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

Reason I'm asking is that I'm still compiling my shortlist of possible contenders that I will hopefully testride this weekend...

The Giant Defy (2.5, i.e with a triple) has been joined by the Specialized Allez, which comes with a triple, but then only with sora shifters... I'd prefer tiagra, but that then leaves me with the allez sport which comes with an 11-25t cassette and 50x34t chainrings...

I know I asked a similar question ages ago, but it is all very confusing...

Would the Allez get me up somewhere like Beacon Fell? If I went for a double and decided later that I did need a triple, how expensive would it be to change?

Will testride pretty much anything I can get my hands on, apart from the two above, but just would prefer to have a rough idea what will work and what won't.... I asked the triple / double question at Buy-a-bike and was informed by the grumpy sales assistant that only fat, old, unfit men need a triple, but I doubt he was a very reliable source looking as if he fit those criteria himself!

Thanks!!!!

I have just recently written a response in another post about gear ratios that I will replicate here that may be if interest.

What you need to do is work out what gear ratios you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket.

By way of an example that is all I have done on my current tour bike, I use a 13t-29t Campagnolo 10 speed cassette set up with a chainset that 26-36-46t chainrings to give the the gear ratios I am after

I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say

It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples have ring choices too large yet the ATB chainsets too small for what I wanted.

Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. Sportive bikes by comparison are normally ridden with no luggage, plus set up generally for riding at a higher speed than a touring bike, you can see from that gear chart above that a 34t inner chain ring with a 27t largest sprocket, a common combination on a sportive bike with compact transmission, will give a lowest gear ratio of approx' 34", on that style of bike that is low enough for most riders, even on a mountain pass.

To try and explain what a 34" gear ratio equates to you will see a red Audax bike in my tour write ups under my signature below, the 'Lejog' write up had a higher gear than that and I rode up every climb, in that specification I also toured the High Alps with two full panniers and again rode every climb.

However, I realised when I was riding in a group I had to keep the gear turning on the climbs and ride quicker than many of my new friends, who were using lower gear ratios than me and able to ride at a slower more socialble pace, that along with wanting to take in the scenery is why you will now see that bike had a triple in some of the later tour articles. As I said gear ratio choices can take some thought, the decision may not always be down to ability.

Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for. As an Audax bike like mine is often used potentially for slower tours, many spec' a triple over a double, where as some of the bikes you are considering are set up more as fast day ride/sportive bikes, as I said above normally used for a slightly faster style of riding, as such they will normally have higher gear ratios than my Audax bike as a result.

Hope this helps

Paul_Smith
www.corridori.co.uk

 

[Randochap]

Disclaimer: It's impossible for anyone else to tell you exactly what your gearing needs are, or what gear you need to personally conquer a given incline.

However, beware of advice from people who say: I have a 39 X 26 and it gets me up anything. That's their experience; not yours.

Also beware those who say a compact double with the same ratios is the same thing as a triple. It's not.

This has been discussed endlessly, but here we go again:

A triple, over the same ratio spread has the advantage of closer spacing. This means that when you bail out of the big ring, on, say, a 50-40-30 triple, the drop is only 10 teeth, rather than the 16T drop from 50 to 34 on a compact double. Smaller difference (and 10 teeth is perfect IMHP) means you don't lose your cadence and end up spinning like hamster on a treadmill.

On my long-distance bikes (see VeloWeb), I run 30-40-50 up front and Campagnolo's biggest spread on the rear of 13-29. I also have a bike w/ (Shimano) 24-36-46 X 12-30 for carrying heavier loads.

Mostly, I'm using the middle and big ring on the triple. Granny gets lonely, but is always there on a long ride, when an 18% grade pops up. In fact, when a very steep hill presents anywhere, I'm likely to spin rather than perform knee-destroying heroics.

But, as I said, I have no idea what your needs are.

 

[jay clock]

get the triple....

 

[Smokin Joe]

Disclaimer: It's impossible for anyone else to tell you exactly what your gearing needs are, or what gear you need to personally conquer a given incline.

However, beware of advice from people who say: I have a 39 X 26 and it gets me up anything. That's their experience; not yours.

Also beware those who say a compact double with the same ratios is the same thing as a triple. It's not.

This has been discussed endlessly, but here we go again:

A triple, over the same ratio spread has the advantage of closer spacing. This means that when you bail out of the big ring, on, say, a 50-40-30 triple, the drop is only 10 teeth, rather than the 16T drop from 50 to 34 on a compact double. Smaller difference (and 10 teeth is perfect IMHP) means you don't lose your cadence and end up spinning like hamster on a treadmill.

On my long-distance bikes (see VeloWeb), I run 30-40-50 up front and Campagnolo's biggest spread on the rear of 13-29. I also have a bike w/ (Shimano) 24-36-46 X 12-30 for carrying heavier loads.

Mostly, I'm using the middle and big ring on the triple. Granny gets lonely, but is always there on a long ride, when an 18% grade pops up. In fact, when a very steep hill presents anywhere, I'm likely to spin rather than perform knee-destroying heroics.

But, as I said, I have no idea what your needs are.

That's an improvement.

Three pages before someone trotted that old myth out again.

 

[fossyant]

All depends on fitness and strength, and if you prefer to spin, or are happy out the saddle wrestling the bike up a steep incline.....

You'll get more out of a triple or compact, but if you don't know how good your climbing is - i.e. up the steep stuff, then get one.....

 

[fossyant]

I'm likely to spin rather than perform knee-destroying heroics.

Like it.....

I'm a grinder and get up 25% climbs in a 39 x 21 - it's not pretty, but it's not after 100 miles, usually on a 50 mile ride..... For a long ride and doing silly hills I'd be looking for bigger sprockets....

It's not the knees that go, it's your ability to hang on to the bike with your hands and arms - or is it me - typical cyclist weedy arms/wrists, big strong legs.... I'm just old skool, ex TT'er !!

 

[Crackle]

Triple! /Len Goodman