Double or triple chainset?

[User482]

Another vote for the triple: most of my riding is done in the middle and big rings, where I have, but I still have the emergency bail-out gears for when I'm knackered and a long way from home.

With a compact you can have a wide range or close ratios; a triple does both.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

you should really check out the SRAM Apex gruppo

Thanks I just have.

Again it's a triumph of marketing over substance. They have matched a regular compact chainset (50/34) with a 11-32 mountainbike rear cassette. Hardly new or original as loads of other people have been doing it with mix and match Shimano parts for years.

But for any given rear cassette, a triple will give you a greater range as well as less jump between changes on the front, and thereby lessening the chances that you will need a double shift. If you match that 11-32 rear cassette with a 26/40/50 triple, you get such a wide range of gears that it's been the standard touring set up since the mid 70s when we all did it with TA components.

Certainly, if you live in regular rolling country (let alone the flatlands), then a road double - a 40/50 or 39/52 combination - will be fine. But if you need lower gears, don't dick around with that set up. Leave it be as it will still serve you well for most of our riding - just add a little, extra ring to the front for when you need it.

 

[StuAff]

Thanks I just have. Again it's a triumph of marketing over substance. They have matched a regular compact chainset (50/34) with a 11-32 mountainbike rear cassette. Hardly new or original as loads of other people have been doing it with mix and match Shimano parts for years. But for any given rear cassette, a triple will give you a greater range as well as less jump between changes on the front, and thereby lessening the chances that you will need a double shift. If you match that 11-32 rear cassette with a 26/40/50 triple, you get such a wide range of gears that it's been the standard touring set up since the mid 70s when we all did it with TA components. Certainly, if you live in regular rolling country (let alone the flatlands), then a road double - a 40/50 or 39/52 combination - will be fine. But if you need lower gears, don't dick around with that set up. Leave it be as it will still serve you well for most of our riding - just add a little, extra ring to the front for when you need it.

For the OP, I agree a triple is the right idea. For many other people too. For touring bikes and weaker riders, in particular. But frankly, I take issue with the idea that compact chainsets and wide-range cassettes are 'marketing over substance'. There's a nice simple reason most sportive bikes, and many others, are specced with compact chainsets- they're what most people who buy those bikes want to use, most of the time. I know quite a few people who do European sportives like the Marmotte & L'Etape du Tour. Compacts on all their bikes. They, as I did, know their own capabilities, the kind of terrain they ride over usually, and what and where they're aiming for, and they made their choice accordingly. My Viner's got a compact double and 12-27 (11 speed) on the back. According to some on here, that gives me gaping chasms between gears, or not enough at the top end....bunk. I'm happy with it, it gives me the range I need and use 99% of the time. I could go to a 29 tooth cassette if I wanted as well. Campagnolo don't do a triple for 11 speed, and I don't see why I'd want one on that bike. If I'm going to be quicker (or breathing easier!) walking up a hill than grinding up it, I'll do that. But the vast majority of the time, what I've got suits me. That's not down to marketing, it's common sense.

 

[Sittingduck]

If hills are an issue, a triple can only be a benefit. You won't lose out at the top end* but have additional low gears available for those nasty climbs!

*Assuming you're pitting a compact 34/50 against a (30/39/50) or similar triple, that is.

 

[User482]

No, sportive bikes are fitted with compact doubles so people can kid themselves that they're fitter than they really are. It's a pointless compromise: if you need lower ratios than those offered by a standard double, you need a triple.

 

[StuAff]

No, sportive bikes are fitted with compact doubles so people can kid themselves that they're fitter than they really are. It's a pointless compromise: if you need lower ratios than those offered by a standard double, you need a triple.

I'll agree to disagree. I know how fit I'm not

 

[Tim Bennet.]

I know quite a few people who do European sportives like the Marmotte & L'Etape du Tour. Compacts on all their bikes. They, as I did, know their own capabilities, the kind of terrain they ride over usually, and what and where they're aiming for, and they made their choice accordingly.

If you read earlier in this thread you would see that the compact's suitability for European alpine sportives has been recognised.
However this doesn't mean they are just as suitable for sportives, audaxes and generally fun riding in the uk.

Finally don't be so dismisses of them being a marketing ploy. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that market was 'demand lead'. It's one of the functions of marketing to create a demand and if as you say these days 'most people want compacts', it may only prove that the marketing campaigns have been successful.

The small producers (Campag and Sram) ideally want to reduce tooling costs in their product lines. One way to restrict the number of components in their range is by eliminating the triple option. By doing this there is then no need for separate chainsets, and in particualr, since Campag have introduced the indexed front Ergolever, it has also eliminated the need for a triple version of this, the most complex and expensive component.

 

[StuAff]

If you read earlier in this thread you would see that the compact's suitability for European alpine sportives has been recognised.
However this doesn't mean they are just as suitable for sportives, audaxes and generally fun riding in the uk.

Finally don't be so dismisses of them being a marketing ploy. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that market was 'demand lead'. It's one of the functions of marketing to create a demand and if as you say these days 'most people want compacts', it may only prove that the marketing campaigns have been successful.

The small producers (Campag and Sram) ideally want to reduce tooling costs in their product lines. One way to restrict the number of components in their range is by eliminating the triple option. By doing this there is then no need for separate chainsets, and in particualr, since Campag have introduced the indexed front Ergolever, it has also eliminated the need for a triple version of this, the most complex and expensive component.

I had seen that point....and there's no reason in your argument why compacts aren't as suitable for the UK. Or for that matter, North America, Asia....Britain's terrain is hardly unique.
I'm not arguing that there's no need for triples. But for many people on many bikes, they are less necessary with the right front chainring/rear cassette combo. Certainly some parts of the country where triples are very handy though..once or twice they'd have been useful for my LeJOG, though I'm not convinced they'd have saved me walking anywhere.
I'm sure Campagnolo and SRAM wouldn't consider themselves small...Shimano are increasingly moving away from triples on the higher-end groups as well. You can still get an Ultegra triple, but not the new Di2, and not Dura-Ace. And they're businesses- they're hardly going to try and sell stuff for which there's an increasingly small market at increasing cost to themselves, are they? Triples, like it or not, are a niche product & lower-end for road (as opposed to touring/audax) these days. The MTB market's going the same way as well.

 

[User482]

Actually, there's a strong argument for going double on an MTB: close ratios are less critical (so a wider ratio cassette can be used), and the highest ratios on a triple are only of use on the road. But that said, my old 7-speed MTB is far more resilient to mud than my 9-speed, so I dread to think what 10-speed will be like.Tim makes a valid point regarding the use of compacts on rolling terrain - there's quite a jump between the front two rings. Not a problem with a triple...

 

[StuAff]

Tim makes a valid point regarding the use of compacts on rolling terrain - there's quite a jump between the front two rings. Not a problem with a triple...

Whether it's actually a problem at all depends on how the rider perceives it.....as should be quite evident from previous threads here and elsewhere on the matter!

 

[User482]

I can understand that it might not bother you, but it seems to be a curious compromise, all for the sake of ditching the granny ring. Personally, I don't even like the jump from 52 to 39!

 

[Tim Bennet.]

though I'm not convinced they'd have saved me walking anywhere.

Walking? I'm sorry, but I was discussing cycling.
If you're happy to walk, then I guess you'll be happy with a compact.

And don't give me that old bull about being able to walk as fast. No one walking and pushing up hills on the Fred Whitton, on up Winnats Pass on the Phil Liggett, or in the Alps on Etapes has ever overtaken me when I've been riding in bottom gear.

 

[MacB]

Whether it's actually a problem at all depends on how the rider perceives it.....as should be quite evident from previous threads here and elsewhere on the matter!

Well there's individual perception, which must vary quite a bit otherwise we wouldn't have Fixed/SS and everything in between out to full triple derailleurs. But the marketing must influence those perceptions, as does the machismo bit. I would say that the amount of people carefully selecting appropriate gearing is far outweighed by the amount that go with what's on offer or suggested by the shop.

If you take a fairly standard compact setup of 50/34 and 12-XX, I wonder how many know that the big gear, 50x12, is the same as a 46x11. Sat it's the following:-

50/34 and 12-27

you can get the same gearing range, but closer spaced, with

46/30 and 11-24

I would argue that, as a compact, the latter would give far greater versatility, in fact I think one of SRAMs new 10 speed Xcountry MTB groups offers 45/29 ish as a compact. Yes, it limits the top end to about 110 gear inches, but I'm yet to be convinced of the average riders need to go beyond that, or even to go that high. At my lowly ability that takes me well beyond 40mph before spinning out and I'm not likely to be pedalling at those speeds anyway.

If you're not bothered by wide ratios then you could get the equivalent of 50/34 with 12-27 by using a 46t upfront and 11-36 on the back, save on front shifting altogether.

 

[StuAff]

Walking? I'm sorry, but I was discussing cycling.
If you're happy to walk, then I guess you'll be happy with a compact.

And don't give me that old bull about being able to walk as fast. No one walking and pushing up hills on the Fred Whitton, on up Winnats Pass on the Phil Liggett, or in the Alps on Etapes has ever overtaken me when I've been riding in bottom gear.

Machismo?

I walked about three hills on LeJOG. The rest, including more than a few 10% + gradients, a compact & 12-25 was perfectly fine for me. On the rest, I would rather walk than put myself through agony to crawl up at 2mph.

 

[StuAff]

Well there's individual perception, which must vary quite a bit otherwise we wouldn't have Fixed/SS and everything in between out to full triple derailleurs. But the marketing must influence those perceptions, as does the machismo bit. I would say that the amount of people carefully selecting appropriate gearing is far outweighed by the amount that go with what's on offer or suggested by the shop.

If you take a fairly standard compact setup of 50/34 and 12-XX, I wonder how many know that the big gear, 50x12, is the same as a 46x11. Sat it's the following:-

50/34 and 12-27

you can get the same gearing range, but closer spaced, with

46/30 and 11-24

I would argue that, as a compact, the latter would give far greater versatility, in fact I think one of SRAMs new 10 speed Xcountry MTB groups offers 45/29 ish as a compact. Yes, it limits the top end to about 110 gear inches, but I'm yet to be convinced of the average riders need to go beyond that, or even to go that high. At my lowly ability that takes me well beyond 40mph before spinning out and I'm not likely to be pedalling at those speeds anyway.

If you're not bothered by wide ratios then you could get the equivalent of 50/34 with 12-27 by using a 46t upfront and 11-36 on the back, save on front shifting altogether.

Yup...and you can just make your brain hurt trying to work all these things out!! The combinations people can achieve through chainring/cassette sizing are bad enough, let alone with hub gears (be they Alfine/Rohloff 7-14 speeds or SRAM DD-type triple replacements) thrown in. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all suits all riders all the time' gear system, nor is there likely to be!

I just take issue with any suggestion that I was led into the choices I made through marketing etc. I like Campag shifting. I considered the reasoning behind 11 speed and it stood up. I knew a compact suited me and the bike just nicely. Athena had excellent reviews, and a friend of mine had 11 speed Record. Hence, I went for Athena. It works for me. Deal with it....