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

[Andy808]

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]

Hi bazzer

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I think you need an n+1

 

[HLaB]

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]

Yea

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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