# SRAM Declares War on the Road Triple... Good Idea or Not?



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

.
If you check out SRAM's marketing materials for Apex (below), they're basically picking a huge fight with the road triple. Their premise? That a compact double plus wide-range cassette (11-32) is better than a road triple in almost every way.

This isn't the first time they've done this either... their SRAM XX mountain _double_ plus _ultra_-wide-range cassette takes on mtn triples as well. 

What do you think of SRAM's Doublemania™? Is it teh Good, teh Bad, or teh Ugly? Should the road triple get voted off the island? And, regardless of the idea's merit, is 'WiFLi' a pretty stupid term? :idea:



.


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

SRAM sure knows their marketing.


----------



## Dr. Placebo (May 8, 2007)

I dislike having a triple so 1 tend to agree with them. witty logo aside I'll probably be upgrading to this.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

I think SRAMs market share is increasing rapidly and this will be another value added product.


----------



## golfernut78 (Mar 19, 2009)

i've never been a fan of a triple on a road bike, so that part of me is okay with it. if you look at the gear ratio comparison on the high and low, it looks good, what is missed though is the working gears. i think someone who rides a tripple and spends most of thier time in the middle ring cycling thru the different cogs in the rear will not like this setup. with this. what use to be the working gears in the middle chain ring is now partially the big ring, and partially the small ring so there will be more front shifts.

i understand the theory behind it, and think it works pretty well on a mountain bike (if you ride typical trails that don't require you to have a low low climbing gear) because on a mountain bike nothing is steady, but on a road bike, where you are working on having a steady cadence.

its odd, because in general my opinion is triples are for mountain bikes and doubles are for road bikes, but here i sit thinking that there should always be that triple option for the road.


----------



## brblue (Jan 28, 2003)

People tend to forget that the triple was a "bolt-on solution" to hills in time when you only had 5-6 sprockets out back.

It would've been dumb to cover a 11-32 range with 5 sprockets. The step size would've been too great.
That's why I think they bolted another chainring to the crankset. (deraillers were friction anyway)

You've got now 10 sprockets out back - it's easier to make a wide range and relatively tight ratio cassette. So - yea no more need for a triple.
You also make things lighter + simpler in the process..


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Yeahbut, a 34/32 is awesome and all, but it doesn't beat a 26/32 for low gears.

For most folks this isn't an issue. BUT if you've got a loaded touring bike, you still need the low, low gears.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Noob Marketing*

Well this will look like a great idea to anyone with less than 10,000 miles in their legs. A little glossy print and portray the triples as being for _grannies_ and this will sell like hotcakes on RAGBRAI.

Unparelleled shifting performance - well designed shifters and derailers have no problem with shifting two or three chainrings.

Q-factor  - yes, they may have that one right, but just because the Q is wider does not mean it is wrong. How many people really determine what the proper Q factor is for their body?

Faster shifting - only two chainrings - how can it shift faster? Once again, well designed shifters and derailers will shift equally as fast be it triple or double.

Lighter weight - these aren't race machines, I would imagine the riders picking a triple or the wide range could skip a donut or two and save way more weight.

Easier set up - building a bike ain't rocket surgery or brain science. Even a marginal shop mechanic ought to be able to properly install a decently designed triple.

Reduntant gears  - it is not like you get 20 distinct gears out of SRAMs set up. No one should expect 30 unique gears out of a triple. The old guys may remember gear charts step shifting.

Fewer wasted shifts improves ride efficiency - a closely spaced cassette without big jumps in gears improves riding efficiency. While wide range cassettes are great to get some extra climbing gears when you look at the middle of the cassette where the bulk of your riding is done there are some big holes. I want everything in the middle closely spaced... 14-15-16-17-18-19 Wide gaps create wasted shifts as people are always looking lower or higher for the right gear to maintain their _efficient_ cadence.

Better at high and low ends - Once again... what is important and what is better is where most of your riding is done... in the middle. And even at the high and low end. the double is not better, just the same or slighty less compared to a triple.

Depending on the rider, their terrain and the choice of gears a compact double can be a better choice than a traditional double but their arguments about it being better than a triple are wrong. It may make the rider feel cooler/faster riding a double instead of a triple but SRAMs argument that it is better is a stretch.

Gold Star for SRAMs marketing team. They will sell a lot of these.


----------



## Nielly (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeah, they may be hyping it a bit but it all makes some sense. Basically the same range using a double in front saves weight and makes shifting simpler, at least in theory. I don't run a triple on the road and don't think I ever will though so not much of an issue for me. I would think about going to a double for the next mountain bike though.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> Gold Star for SRAMs marketing team.


Of course—marketing is what this is all about. But so is pitching race bikes to people who never race, so it's totally in line with the current industry picture. What's odd is SRAM's timing—aren't they a little late with this? People coming into the sport have perceived the triple to be the mark of the weak and the tourist for some time now.


----------



## golfernut78 (Mar 19, 2009)

brblue said:


> People tend to forget that the triple was a "bolt-on solution" to hills in time when you only had 5-6 sprockets out back.
> 
> It would've been dumb to cover a 11-32 range with 5 sprockets. The step size would've been too great.
> That's why I think they bolted another chainring to the crankset. (deraillers were friction anyway)
> ...


fairenough, as i still remember riding my dad's bridgestone r500 with suntour and a 5 speed freewheel, but that said the variety of people riding is far greater than what it was then. there are many people out there that enjoy riding, but aren't in great shape and need the extra help. there are also others who are in great shape, but ride such intense climbs they need that help.

even with a 10 speed cassatte, an 11-32 or even 12-32 is still pretty spaced out.

more than anything, its nice to have options. road riding isn't my passion, mountain biking is, and i love that there are options now for a double on the mountain bike instead of the traditional triple. i think road riders should have the same options to.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*for the gullible and inexperienced*

That baloney will work on the gullible and inexperienced buyer, but not me. The big jumps between the cogs suck, on the road. 

The apples to apples weight difference should be 100 grams or less. Some people want or need the smaller tread width, but I've used both and have no problem switching between them.


----------



## Jim311 (Sep 18, 2009)

My road bike only has one gear. It has lower weight, better q-factor, faster shifting, and better reliability. For this reason I am convinced that singlespeed is the way to go.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I like the idea, but I think the marketing is very misleading. Most triples have a 52 or 53 big ring, and an 11 is just as easy to provide on a triple. I think the range is still plenty for anyone looking at this class of bike and range of gears, but I very much dislike the marketing on this one (and I'm a huge SRAM fan).


----------



## bolandjd (Sep 12, 2008)

I don't see compact doubles ever replacing touring triples (or mountain, if you prefer) - the kind with "real" 20-something tooth granny gears. Tourers need their low-low gear to get up big hills carrying lots of crappola. Maybe the new 28-ish-40-ish type "mountain" doubles could break into the touring market, but tourers tend to be more retro-grouchy than mountain bikers, in my observation. 30-40-50 type "road" triples never made a lot of sense to me. I could definitely see those going the way of the threaded headset fairly soon, especially as 11 speed cassettes become the new standard. Certainly compact doubles started replacing triples a while ago. I think Sram is trying to be the first to put the last nail in the coffin. How else do they compete with 11-speed Campy and electronic Dura-Ace?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*More compact double benefits.*

- Cheaper to manufacture.
- Easy weight "savings" (SRAM's bread-and-butter)
- No need to produce triple shifters (triple shifting would probably be a mess with Double Tap)
- No need to produce triple FDs.
- Fewer production/distribution headaches for SRAM.
- Fewer component selection headaches for product managers.
- Fewer complaints about SRAM due to incompetent configuration of "harder" to set up triples.

Skipping triples makes a ton of sense for SRAM. From the customer perspective, the primary benefits go to those who don't need a triple anyway, but like having a wide range for one reason or another and are not picky about gaps.

Shimano has pretty much dialed the triple. Its not hard to set up if you take 2 minutes to learn how -- i've done it hundreds of times and taught dozens of people how to set-up triples with STIs. "Its hard" = "I'm not trying".

Likewise with shifting.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> Easier set up - building a bike ain't rocket surgery or brain science. Even a marginal shop mechanic ought to be able to properly install a decently designed triple.


Even for an experienced wrench, a triple is more fiddly to set up. In that respect I agree with them.

But the bigger the gaps on a cassette the less efficient it will be for an experienced rider on the road. For cross and newer road riders it'll be a boon.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Even for an experienced wrench, a triple is more fiddly to set up. In that respect I agree with them.


If by "more fiddly to set up" you mean that it may take about 30 extra seconds, I agree.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*only true for Shimano*



ultimobici said:


> Even for an experienced wrench, a triple is more fiddly to set up. In that respect I agree with them.
> 
> But the bigger the gaps on a cassette the less efficient it will be for an experienced rider on the road. For cross and newer road riders it'll be a boon.


It can be tougher to set up with Shimano, but with Campy's trim its no harder or easier than a double. Unfortunately, I think we;ll see the end of triples with Campy soon also


----------



## m_s (Nov 20, 2007)

I dislike indexed front shifting with STI. I think that's the real problem. The campy system is good, I wish more manufacturers would just use some sort of ratcheting system for at least some of their front shifting systems. Touring drivetrains, for example, will probably have/need triples for the foreseeable future, but IMO SRAM's approach can work for some scenarios. I think I will use it on my geared cross bike with a standard double. This range should work for me.

Obviously this system will not appeal to people demanding both a wide and tight gearing range. I am not one of those people.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*still some market share*



wim said:


> Of course—marketing is what this is all about. But so is pitching race bikes to people who never race, so it's totally in line with the current industry picture. What's odd is SRAM's timing—aren't they a little late with this? People coming into the sport have perceived the triple to be the mark of the weak and the tourist for some time now.


I agree that triple is already a pariah, but I think that SRAM may still be able to capture some riders at the entry level who might be coming from a mountain bike with a triple to go with their wide range compact. I don't understand the vilification aspect of the triple and why people are so obsessed with what components other people are using but that does not change the fact that the triple market is diminishing fast


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Not really vilification, IMO.*



DaveG said:


> I don't understand the vilification aspect of the triple and why people are so obsessed with what components other people are using but that does not change the fact that the triple market is diminishing fast


I see it more like the triple retreating to where it's always been (and always will be) appreciated. Keep in mind that many otherwise racy-looking bikes were spec'd with triples to allow people coming into the sport a way to climb at a comfortable cadence, with speed not being an issue. The compact pretty much does the same thing while looking like a racer's double—so it's the perfect crank to go with the marketing of the racing image. The triple will never die because savvy riders know what it can do for them in specific riding situations.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Triples aren't for road bikes*

atmo.

They're for touring bikes, sure.

C'mon, I'm not even old enough to remember 52/42 13-15-17-19-21-(23) being "moutain" gears, but I know that was that.

In that sense, adding that 30-something tooth granny gear to allow novices to be able to ride comfortably made sense.

Now that we've got 50/34 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27 or whatever, let alone whatever gets up to 32 on the cassette, I think we can handle it with the double.

Again, loaded touring gets a bye.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Argentius said:


> Triples aren't for raod bikes, atmo. They're for touring bikes, sure..


Well, that's what saddens me: the term "road bike" now meaning "race-type bikes." As far as I'm concerned, touring bikes, commuter bikes and even cruisers are "road bikes." Sure, the pro-quality "road bike" pedaled around at 18 mph by a non-racer is great for business. But it's not the only way to ride and enjoy a bike on the road. I know it's all just semantics and such, but language has a way of skewing perceptions.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> .
> If you check out SRAM's marketing materials for Apex (below), they're basically picking a huge fight with the road triple. Their premise? That a compact double plus wide-range cassette (11-32) is better than a road triple in almost every way.
> 
> This isn't the first time they've done this either... their SRAM XX mountain _double_ plus _ultra_-wide-range cassette takes on mtn triples as well.
> ...


It's stupid.

The wide range means big gaps between gears; so when you're pedaling along at a comfortable cadence you need to put out 26% more power up shifting from an 18 to 16 cog instead of 12% where there's a one-tooth gap.

If you need a 32 big cog, you don't need an 11 small cog or even a 12. A 50x13 is bigger than the 52x14 or 53x14 biggest gear Greg Lemond used as a professional cyclist.

My favorite road gearing is 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> If you need a 32 big cog, you don't need an 11 small cog or even a 12. A 50x13 is bigger than the 52x14 or 53x14 biggest gear Greg Lemond used as a professional cyclist


Lemond and his peers were using 53x12 as far back as 81/82. Hell I was using a 12 in 83!
While I agree 50x11 is a high gear it is necessary in the mountains, as is a 34x26. 34x32 may be a little too low for many, but it is great if you have the option to have it when the need arises, without any other changes to the bike.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

buck-50 said:


> Yeahbut, a 34/32 is awesome and all, but it doesn't beat a 26/32 for low gears.
> 
> For most folks this isn't an issue. BUT if you've got a loaded touring bike, you still need the low, low gears.


This, IMO, is the only time one needs a triple on a road bike. I don't think the triple will ever be "un-needed" for touring. For general road cycling? Yeah...it's not needed, for the most part.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

If you look at how many new bikes come with Shimano's Ultegra w/ a compact up front and a 11-28 in the rear gives virtually the same range as a typical triple, costs and weighs less. 
In Houston, I'd never use it, but once I get into Bastrop, that would be a major benefit.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

never ridden a triple. never expect to, either.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*I think yes*



wim said:


> I see it more like the triple retreating to where it's always been (and always will be) appreciated. Keep in mind that many otherwise racy-looking bikes were spec'd with triples to allow people coming into the sport a way to climb at a comfortable cadence, with speed not being an issue. The compact pretty much does the same thing while looking like a racer's double—so it's the perfect crank to go with the marketing of the racing image. The triple will never die because savvy riders know what it can do for them in specific riding situations.


Maybe not vilified, but definitely ostracized. This part I really don't understand. In past years if someone posted a question on triples, there would also be a flood of responses questioning their manhood (or womanhood) and suggesting they could climb Mr Everest in nothing lower than a 39/23. Now that Compacts have roughly the same low gears as past triples, for some reason that is more acceptable because its a double. Not sure why that bothers me but we cyclists seem to have a narrow band of conformity.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> Well this will look like a great idea to anyone with less than 10,000 miles in their legs. A little glossy print and portray the triples as being for _grannies_ and this will sell like hotcakes on RAGBRAI.
> 
> Unparelleled shifting performance - well designed shifters and derailers have no problem with shifting two or three chainrings.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with every single point, but... best-written post in the thread. Well said. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> *What's odd is SRAM's timing—aren't they a little late with this? *
> 
> People coming into the sport have perceived the triple to be the mark of the weak and the tourist for some time now.


My guess? It's because with Apex, they are now taking on Tiagra and 105 (Rival _should_ be their 105-fighter, but for whatever reason it's being spec'd mostly on Ultegra-pricepoint bikes, even though it's not that expensive).

And the Tiagra and 105 pricepoints seem to be the stronghold of the road triple. So, if you want to beat up on Tiagra and 105, you do it not only with price, not only with weight, but also with the notion that the general drivetrain approach on a lot of Tiagra and 105 bikes (the triple ones) is wrong/inferior.

Just a theory, but I think that's how marketing and product-positioning tends to work. 
.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> This, IMO, is the only time one needs a triple on a road bike. I don't think the triple will ever be "un-needed" for touring. For general road cycling? Yeah...it's not needed, for the most part.


Speak for one's self...  

THere are plenty of folks like my parents, in their 60s, who want road bikes with triples so they can get up hills. And you can give them fancy charts like the one sram has until the cows come home, and they're still going to say, yeah, but I want a triple. 

I know they aren't cool anymore and they are the mark of pure dork-itude, but I think getting rid of them is a mistake.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> This, IMO, is the only time one needs a triple on a road bike. I don't think the triple will ever be "un-needed" for touring. For general road cycling? Yeah...it's not needed, for the most part.


I tend to agree, except for one thing... those who love road triples enjoy two significant advantages:

1) being able to stay in the middle ring most of the time, while getting mostly 1-tooth jumps between their mainstay gears. 

2) a wider overall range of gears than doubles offer, i.e. a lower low gear

Now, SRAM's approach does wipe out the 'wider overall gear range' advantage of the road triple, but doesn't do anything about advantage #1.

And this points out the one big disadvantage with SRAM's 'WiFLi' (really hate that term) approach... wide-range cassettes, even with 10 cogs, still have some pretty big jumps in them.

SRAM's 11-32 is 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32 (BikeRadar messed up on their initial reporting of the progression)... looking at that, the 13–>15, 15–>17 and 19–>22 jumps just aren't fun, nobody's going to be crazy about those. And, those jumps are more or less in the middle of the progression, where you're going to run into them more often.

I think the mistake here is that SRAM's marketing department wasn't happy with just matching the road triple's overall range... they felt they needed to _beat_ it, as a talking point. But if they'd just matched it, their wide-range cassette could've been a bit tighter/nicer to deal with. 

FWIW, I think Campy is already doing this whole approach, and better than SRAM is... their just-released 12-29 cassette has a nice progression to it. Combine it with a compact, and you get the road triple's gear range with no nasty huge jumps.

But, that's one of the advantages of having 11 cogs to play with instead of 10. And kinda points out that, even if 'WiFLi' doesn't quite work out as a road-triple-killer, sooner or later compact + enough cogs will = the road triple going bye-bye or at least getting marginalized, 'cept on touring bikes, as Plat said.

(though I think true touring bikes are better served by having mountain triples, IMO)
.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

DaveG said:


> Now that Compacts have roughly the same low gears as past triples, for some reason that is more acceptable because its a double. Not sure why that bothers me but we cyclists seem to have a narrow band of conformity.


I agree with you, but you and I are using logic were logic doesn't apply. It's all about style, not performance.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I guess I should clarify... I don't think triples belong on road bikes using the current definition ("racing" bikes). You can put triples on touring bikes, comfort road/entry level road bikes and I won't say a thing. If someone is riding a Scott Addict and they have a triple on it, though.... well, they bought the wrong bike.

Of course, I also think triples should only be used with Campy shifters (or bar-cons). Shimano STI triples suck. Front shifting shouldn't be indexed at all - double or triple. (IMO)


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Equipment should be determined by the requirements of the rider for the terrain ridden, period.

All these attempts to classify bikes as this or that "type" and then define the appropriate gearing serves nobody except mass marketers who have a financial stake in pigeon-holing their customers. Obviously, informed riders can request or implement whatever they know they want by negotiating with shops or swapping out parts themselves. That is, until people like these marketing tools at SRAM rationalize reducing options simply because they are too inept/lazy/cheap to offer a full range. That alone would be their prerogative, but they are actively trying to sell a constrained set of options to uninformed buyers as objectively superior.

Just say "We at SRAM just couldn't design a double-tap triple that worked". Or if that is too much to ask, claim to be focused on "high performance enthusiasts". Or say nothing. Whatever. Don't spread FUD about triples to paper over the holes in your line-up.


----------



## RussellS (Feb 1, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Lemond and his peers were using 53x12 as far back as 81/82. Hell I was using a 12 in 83!
> While I agree 50x11 is a high gear it is necessary in the mountains, as is a 34x26. 34x32 may be a little too low for many, but it is great if you have the option to have it when the need arises, without any other changes to the bike.


A 11 tooth is necessary in the mountains? Hmmmm. At 120 rpm, which is spinning, you are going 43 mph in a 50x11. I've gone 65 mph down the mountains in the Rockies. With just a 52x13 high gear. Coasting gets you up to speed in the mountains, not a worthless 11 cog.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

PlatyPius said:


> I guess I should clarify... I don't think triples belong on road bikes using the current definition ("racing" bikes). You can put triples on touring bikes, comfort road/entry level road bikes and I won't say a thing. If someone is riding a Scott Addict and they have a triple on it, though.... well, they bought the wrong bike.
> 
> Of course, I also think triples should only be used with Campy shifters (or bar-cons). Shimano STI triples suck. Front shifting shouldn't be indexed at all - double or triple. (IMO)


I concur. Shimano's 10 speed road triples can be a real pain to get right. The "indexed" STI shifter, the narrow front derailleur combined with the short chainstays of a road bike make for some serious issues. And I'm talking about our service manager who is the best mechanic I've ever seen. He curses them.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

RussellS said:


> A 11 tooth is necessary in the mountains? Hmmmm. At 120 rpm, which is spinning, you are going 43 mph in a 50x11. I've gone 65 mph down the mountains in the Rockies. With just a 52x13 high gear. Coasting gets you up to speed in the mountains, not a worthless 11 cog.


Talking about my experience in Italy, where the descents are technical switchbacks. However with an 12-25 I found I was unable to use the 13 as it was second in the cassette rather than third. 50/38 x 11-23 in the UK for flatter terrain then swap out the 38 for a 34 and use an 11-26 for the mountains. Means I have a usable range for the conditions.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

DaveG said:


> Maybe not vilified, but definitely ostracized. This part I really don't understand. In past years if someone posted a question on triples, there would also be a flood of responses questioning their manhood (or womanhood) and suggesting they could climb Mr Everest in nothing lower than a 39/23. Now that Compacts have roughly the same low gears as past triples, for some reason that is more acceptable because its a double. Not sure why that bothers me but we cyclists seem to have a narrow band of conformity.


The compact double is the "comb over" of the road cycling world.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Camilo said:


> The compact double is the "comb over" of the road cycling world.


LOL!! My friend in Italy rides 53/39 and 11-25. Rips the piss out of me on 50/34 and 11-26. But then he rides the hills between Brianza and Lago di Como (Giro di Lombardia) all the time as well as frequent rides in Liguria(MSR country) and I have to make do with SE England and its bumps.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Camilo said:


> The compact double is the "comb over" of the road cycling world.


LOL, funny. :lol:

But... is it really? I can think of a few climbs in my neck of the woods that would be difficult for some ppl even with a 39x27 (about the widest-range cassette I'd want, on Shimano/SRAM at least).

And I don't even live near the Sierras or Rockies.

If we're saying that cycling is only for the fit, dedicated, and relatively young, who don't live in/near the mountains, then sure, your comment is spot-on. 

But I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable narrowing the market to that, and telling everyone else to either eff off or get a triple (which some don't want).

I'm sure the bike/component makers don't.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> All these attempts to classify bikes as this or that "type" and then define the appropriate gearing serves nobody except mass marketers who have a financial stake in pigeon-holing their customers. Obviously, informed riders can request or implement whatever they know they want by negotiating with shops or swapping out parts themselves. That is, until people like these marketing tools at SRAM rationalize reducing options simply because they are too inept/lazy/cheap to offer a full range. That alone would be their prerogative, but they are actively trying to sell a constrained set of options to uninformed buyers as objectively superior.
> 
> Just say "We at SRAM just couldn't design a double-tap triple that worked". Or if that is too much to ask, claim to be focused on "high performance enthusiasts". Or say nothing. Whatever. Don't spread FUD about triples to paper over the holes in your line-up.


Weren't you telling me in another thread that you can't save ppl from marketing? :idea:

Nice to see you're not as passive as I thought. 
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Weren't you telling me in another thread that you can't save ppl from marketing? :idea:
> 
> Nice to see you're not as passive as I thought.
> .


Touché 

Then again, I distinguish aspirational imaging from this kind of misleading BS. This may or may not be motivated by my knee-jerk disdain for everything that SRAM sells that is not a (non-powerdome) cassette or a chain.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> SRAM's 11-32 is 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32


Three tooth spacing in the middle of a cassette means it's not a ROAD cassette, whether this is from 17-20, 18-21, or 19-22.

What's particularly bad for SRAM is that they are matching the 11-32 cassette with a 50/34. There isn't a slightly lower gear than 50/19, even if you change down to the 34 ring. 34/13 is about the same as 50/19, and the jump from 34/15 to 50/19 is a huge 16.1%.

A much better cassette to match with a 50/34 is an 11-30 (11,12,13,15,17,19,21,23,26,30).

The downside for SRAM's marketing people is that 34/30 isn't lower than a 30/27 triple. It's actually between 30/26 and 30/27. If SRAM made a 12-32 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32) and a 12-34 (12,13,15,17,19,21,23,26,30,34) and maybe color coded the 17 and 23 sprockets so that you could see the ideal change points, now that would be impressive.

I hope SRAM just uses the 11-32 cassette as a marketing tool, and bike manufacturers don't actually specify it on any of their bikes.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

It's a bit of a snobbish thing for me to say, but the only advantages I could make out with having a triple on a dedicated road bike are some in-between ratios, and the 3-4 lighter ratios. And yet, I'd think that if you need those ratios/gears, you probably bought the wrong bike. More exact ratios are a bit of overkill with the current 10 speed cassettes, and such a need would be an indication that you simply aren't able to be flexible with a given gear - you don't have to shift for every little change in gradient. A compact crank with a 34t ring matched with 32t gear can get over virtually anything that isn't perpendicular to the ground, assuming the rider has legs. 

I will acknowledge that rehabilitating or injured riders can benefit from a triple's advantages...but I don't think SRAM, a company who's top road groupsets are aimed at competitve cyclists, should have to cater to that. How I see Apex fitting in the industry is a scenario where a budget, and particularly capable/athletic rider doesn't want to opt for Tiagra's somewhat conservative setup and ergonomics. I'd take it that those racing or even just avid cyclists with Tiagra totally want something like 105 for the same money - something more focused.

I will agree, though, that SRAM's marketing is a bit silly. You don't need to come up with some hoo-hah called "WiFLi" to convey the point that having a compact double is having a drivetrain setup without any excess of a triple.


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

It's pretty obvious that SRAM has probably hired a new marketing team. One with experience in FMCGs. I'd bet that all these ideas have been qual and quant tested by SRAM. They didn't launch '105 killer' blindly. Only time will tell if their marketing will turn out to be 'silly'.

I for one would grab the chance to work for Shimano's marketing team.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Touché
> 
> Then again, I distinguish aspirational imaging from this kind of misleading BS.


It's ALL marketing to one extent or another, PBB. 

To quote Star Wars, "Search your feelings. You know this to be true."  
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> Three tooth spacing in the middle of a cassette means it's not a ROAD cassette, whether this is from 17-20, 18-21, or 19-22.


I won't argue. I really dislike the 19–>22 that SRAM throws into their 11-28 cassettes. I won't buy one of those.
.


----------



## sometimerider (Sep 21, 2007)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> The wide range means big gaps between gears; so when you're pedaling along at a comfortable cadence you need to put out 26% more power up shifting from an 18 to 16 cog instead of 12% where there's a one-tooth gap.


I don't understand. Gear ratio has nothing to do with how much power is required to go a given speed.

Your cadence is obviously affected, but going from an 18 to a 16 cog is just an 11% change (which doesn't bother me at all). And 18 to 17 is a 5.5% change.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Apr 15, 2008)

Oh, by all means, I love having 3 differant gears that provide the same ratio, among other redundant gears.

doesn't your car have three 4th gears too?

Triple FTW!



____________

for everyone talking about cadence and the spacing....i don't know many tiagra/apex level riders that pay attention to cadence to that extreme a degree. remember the market this is for, for all us racers, yea we need a tighter cassette, for most people....not so much.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Sure. But "its marketing" doesn't excuse misinformation. :nono:


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Sure. But "its marketing" doesn't excuse misinformation. :nono:


Maybe they borrowed Cervelo's marketing people....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Sure. But "its marketing" doesn't excuse misinformation. :nono:


Yup. And I've never, nor would I ever, say it does.

I rather like this new "non-shrinking violet" PBB. :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

sometimerider said:


> I don't understand. Gear ratio has nothing to do with how much power is required to go a given speed.
> 
> Your cadence is obviously affected, but going from an 18 to a 16 cog is just an 11% change (which doesn't bother me at all). And 18 to 17 is a 5.5% change.


I think his argument assumes that you're keeping roughly the same cadence after shifting up?

If so, then yes, you do need quite a lot more power to go from an 18 cog to a 16... if he's talking big ring and riding on the flats (wind resistance isn't linear).

That's always been a major (maybe _the_ major) justification for 1-tooth jumps being very desirable for one's flatland gears. But again, I'm just assuming that's what he's getting at.
.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I think Wider is the misleading part... but surely it is wide enough. I think they should have just called it Wide instead of Wider.


----------



## percy (May 17, 2004)

Geez ... does anyone think it's really more dorky to run a triple crank with a "normal" cassette versus the stigma of sporting a 32 cog in the back? Isn't that kind of a wash just in terms of dorkiness?

With my triple I can get away with a 12-25 or even a 12-23. Hardly ever have to use the granny but I appreciate that it's there when I need it. And when I need it, I need it. 

There ain't no right or wrong. It's just a personal choice. I tried a compact for awhile and found I prefer a triple -- on a Madone no less. So there.

This year I'm going to try a 14-25 Ultegra because with the triple I don't need the 27 (and I live in pretty hilly country), I really don't have much use for the 12 and I like having a nice close ratio in back 'cause I like to shift a lot. 

I'm just as much of a sucker for marketing hype as anyone, but once you've been riding awhile and find what works for you, no need to be ashamed.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

percy said:


> Geez ... does anyone think it's really more dorky to run a triple crank with a "normal" cassette versus the stigma of sporting a 32 cog in the back? Isn't that kind of a wash just in terms of dorkiness?


You would think so. But I guess with so many ppl already running 12-27 or 11-28 in back on hardcore racing bikes, bigger cassettes don't have quite the 'dork factor' they used to.




> _I'm just as much of a sucker for marketing hype as anyone, but once you've been riding awhile and find what works for you, no need to be ashamed._


Wise words.. :yesnod: 
.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

percy said:


> Geez ... does anyone think it's really more dorky to run a triple crank with a "normal" cassette versus the stigma of sporting a 32 cog in the back? Isn't that kind of a wash just in terms of dorkiness?


Good point. I expect pie-plates to start re-appearing on bikes, just to distract attention from the 32, 34 & 36T cogs.

Photographing bikes from the non-drive side may become more popular as well.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I really like my compact, because i can run an 11-23 most of the time and easily switch up to an 11-26 or 11-28 for ridiculously hilly rides. In any case, since I'm not trying to spin a 53x11 down a mountain pass, the 50x11 is plenty. I can't imagine the need for a triple and even with the 11-26 I don't feel like there are any ridiculous jumps in gears between cogs. Even without WiFLi, I think the triple is really silly for most people.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

MarvinK said:


> I really like my compact, because i can run an 11-23 most of the time and easily switch up to an 11-26 or 11-28 for ridiculously hilly rides. In any case, since I'm not trying to spin a 53x11 down a mountain pass, the 50x11 is plenty. I can't imagine the need for a triple and even with the 11-26 I don't feel like there are any ridiculous jumps in gears between cogs. Even without WiFLi, *I think the triple is really silly for most people.*


Uh oh, now you've done it.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> Uh oh, now you've done it.


Surprisingly, no one's gone medieval on him yet.
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

A triple crankset is best fitted to a bike with a narrow seat tube eg. 28.6mm.

Campy for example recommend a 111mm bottom bracket when their triple crankset is fitted to a bike with a narrow 28.6mm seat tube. If the seat tube is wider, such as 31.8mm or 34.9mm, then they recommend a wider 115.5mm bottom bracket. This adversely affects the chainline and the Q-factor.

Nowadays, most bikes come with a wider seat tube, so maybe this is another reason that SRAM doesn't want to make a triple.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

rickhotrod said:


> *A triple crankset is best fitted to a bike with a narrow seat tube eg. 28.6mm.*
> 
> Campy for example recommend a 111mm bottom bracket when their triple crankset is fitted to a bike with a narrow 28.6mm seat tube. If the seat tube is wider, such as 31.8mm or 34.9mm, then they recommend a wider 115.5mm bottom bracket. This adversely affects the chainline and the Q-factor.
> 
> Nowadays, most bikes come with a wider seat tube, so maybe this is another reason that SRAM doesn't want to make a triple.


I agree with that.
I doubt that most people would even notice, though.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Et tu, Campy?*

Wow... Sasquatch mentioned this in another thread... apparently, Campy, like SRAM, has been overtly declaring the road triple toast... and they've even been saying it for longer, too:

*11DEC 2009
2 IS MORE THAN 3

COMPACT 11SPEED CRANKSET VS TRIPLE 10SPEED CRANKSET*

The natural evolution of technologies and the development of new designs often mean that certain products, though still valid, lose significance when compared to new solutions available on the market. 

This is the case of the triple crankset. 

Already some years back, with the introduction of the compact crankset, the number of users of the triple fell considerably, marking a trend that has continuously diminished year by year. 

With Campagnolo's introduction of the 11-speed groupsets last season, thanks to the presence of 11 rear sprockets to choose from, the advantage given by the compact became even more accentuated. 

Today, thanks to the new 12-29 sprocket set, the compact crankset has made a decisive step forward with respect to the triple. 

Taking as an example a classic triple configuration (53-42-30) associated with a 13-29 sprocket set and comparing it with a compact 50-34 and the brand new 12-29 sprocket set, it is not surprising to note that the new sprocket with 29 teeth associated with the 34 of the compact allows metric developments similar to those of a triple crankset with a rear sprocket 29 (30 cm of difference).

Even for the hardest ratios, the two configurations are very close in terms of metric development: the 53-13 of the triple compared to the 50-12 of the compact has a difference of only 20 cm.

In addition to all this is the fact that the compact crankset enables huge savings in terms of element weight, which is especially crucial when confronting demanding climbs where the force of gravity plays against the rider. A reduction of the Q and U factors and less intersection and overlapping of the ratios with consequent better chain alignment are further advantages given by the use of the compact.

And that's not all. There is also the enormous advantage of not having to change the rocker arm of the 11-speed rear derailleur already purchased in order to fit the brand new 12-29 sprocket set, the real and incredible news.

*Thanks, therefore, to 11-speed technology and to the new 12-29 sprocket set, the era of the triple seems to be drawing to a close. *Today, all cycling enthusiasts can confront the most challenging climbs even without being in top condition.​


They even have a nice little comparative gear chart too...

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/newsdetail/newsid_124_newscatid_3.jsp
.


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

"Today, all cycling enthusiasts can confront the most challenging climbs even without being in top condition."

Wow, so according to Campy, a 34-29 gear ratio is enough for all conceivable cyclists and cycling applications. I'll try to keep this in mind next time I'm dragging a touring load up a 20% grade.


----------



## Wheelman55 (Jul 10, 2009)

Don't you all find it interesting that those who can't make a triple are trying to get sales from those who can make a triple? SRAM will be singing a different tune once they get the technology down and build their own. I'm willing to bet that they are feverishly working to come up with a triple.

Staying in the middle is good. And yes, closer spacing of the cogs on the cassette makes for easier, more pleasurable riding...even if the riders are not experienced.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Wheelman55 said:


> Don't you all find it interesting that those who can't make a triple are trying to get sales from those who can make a triple? SRAM will be singing a different tune once they get the technology down and build their own. *I'm willing to bet that they are feverishly working to come up with a triple.*
> 
> Staying in the middle is good. And yes, closer spacing of the cogs on the cassette makes for easier, more pleasurable riding...even if the riders are not experienced.


I seriously doubt it. Triple sales are pretty pathetic, really, compared to a few years ago. I have a few in my store, but there has been no interest. I *have* changed out 2 triples for doubles since I opened, though.

That said, I'm thinking about building up a Gunnar touring bike with SRAM bar cons/drivetrain and a Sugino triple crank...


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

it's all just marketing (i.e. BS). Both companies are doing what's best for them, and anything that allows them to grab from Shimano's marketshare will benefit them...not necessarily in the long run though. 

While their claims may not fly with the touring crowd...it might be more effective if a noOb were reading it. And we all know how nOobs tend to "buy" speed. Hence, Campy's claim that their gear combination will get a [email protected]$$ couch potato up Alpe d'Huez. 

Maybe it's time Shimano did some real marketing of their own instead of just banking on pro sponsorships and race banners during cross season. It works alright, but we will not know the extent of Campy's and SRAM's damage to their brand until it is too late.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I think the WORST group of people for triples are noobs. They are the most likely to put a lot of load on while they're dropping into the tiny third ring... and drop the chain. Of course, under load they've just started going up some steep climb and now they've lost all momentum. The drop from a 50x34 is a lot (frankly, I think 50x36 and 48x34 should be the 2 common options), but the shorter derailleur cage helps keep the chain shorter and less sloppy during the gear change.

I don't know about your area, but when I go on a very large organized ride that has a fair number of couch potatoes... even those with triples walk up the 'bad' hills. In Seattle, the Seattle to Portland ride has a hill that is about 1mi and maybe a 6 or 7% grade. I see more people with triples walking than anyone else. Frankly, I can't believe someone would sign up for a 200mi ride and not be able to ride up that hill.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Everyone sell me your DA triples. I will buy them all!


----------



## Wheelman55 (Jul 10, 2009)

Sasquatch said:


> it's all just marketing (i.e. BS).
> 
> Maybe it's time Shimano did some real marketing of their own instead of just banking on pro sponsorships and race banners during cross season. It works alright, but we will not know the extent of Campy's and SRAM's damage to their brand until it is too late.


I don't think that Shimano could market their way out of a wet paper sack. It's really unfortunate.


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

Wheelman55 said:


> I don't think that Shimano could market their way out of a wet paper sack. It's really unfortunate.


I can't imagine they're getting much love lately from the 'cross and touring crowd after screwing around with the brake cable pull ratio on their latest STI levers. If I understand it right, they've broken compatibility with just about everything but their own short-reach road calipers, including mechanical discs, medium and long reach calipers (including their own), and even V-brakes (via a travel agent). Cantilevers can probably be tweaked to work so maybe the 'cross folks won't notice.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*Never thought I'd see the day*

when so many roadies are defending triples. 

I'm all for it. A compact plus an 11-28 gives a range that covers everything I need without more front shifting. The 34x32 gives a lower gear than the 39x34 so many of my friends had when they put a mountain cassette on their 9 speed drivetrain. 

A good idea isn't marketing hype. The test will be if compacts with wide range gearing will stick, and I think they will.


----------



## Wheelman55 (Jul 10, 2009)

Sablotny said:


> when so many roadies are defending triples.
> 
> I'm all for it. A compact plus an 11-28 gives a range that covers everything I need without more front shifting. The 34x32 gives a lower gear than the 39x34 so many of my friends had when they put a mountain cassette on their 9 speed drivetrain.
> 
> A good idea isn't marketing hype. The test will be if compacts with wide range gearing will stick, and I think they will.


Compact cranks coupled with a pie plate cassette is an old idea that works really well. I got the idea from some "old" riders back in the early 90's for my 7 speed cassette. The whole point of it is to allow you to keep in the middle of the cassette most of the time. You get a smaller big ring which for all but the strongest riders is a better choice in hilly terrain. Ditto with the smaller "small" ring...you spend more time in the middle of the cassette which makes for fewer FD shifts which are very inefficient.

The triple does this well and is a good choice for touring and for a more recreational rider whose biggest fear is getting up that "big" hill that you might not notice. No single solution is right for every rider or for every situation as the SRAM marketing people are claiming.

The wide range double has fewer useable gears and will likely make for cross chaining headaches for those same recreational riders who really don't get the whole shifting thing. The wide range double seems like a bigger small and a bigger middle ring to me for these riders.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

Sablotny said:


> A compact plus an 11-28 gives a range that covers everything I need without more front shifting.


A 50/42/34 triple would need less shifting than a 50/34 compact. The reason being that you can remain in the middle ring on the triple most of the time.

When the triple is finally killed, they will become very popular again as ppl always want what they can't have!


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Wheelman55 said:


> I don't think that Shimano could market their way out of a wet paper sack. It's really unfortunate.


SRAM is going to run over everyone... they are GREAT at marketing, picking sponsored riders and working with OEMs. Everyone else has maybe 2 of those 3 skills.


----------



## Wheelman55 (Jul 10, 2009)

MarvinK said:


> SRAM is going to run over everyone... they are GREAT at marketing, picking sponsored riders and working with OEMs. Everyone else has maybe 2 of those 3 skills.


Then we all better hope that they get their quality and precision up with the other two that they are running over.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Wheelman55 said:


> Then we all better hope that they get their quality and precision up with the other two that they are running over.


I think their stuff works great, but I can understand the appeal of the lighter action on Shimano. I'd say the quality and precision of Rival easily beats 105. Athena is irrelevant due to Campy's lack of interest in OEMs.

On the flip side, maybe SRAM will give Campy the motivation they need to actually try to compete on the OEM side. If they don't, I think they're going to become increasingly less relevant... or strangled out until they are only a boutique brand that only makes 2-3 high-end groups.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*regrettably agree*



MarvinK said:


> I think their stuff works great, but I can understand the appeal of the lighter action on Shimano. I'd say the quality and precision of Rival easily beats 105. Athena is irrelevant due to Campy's lack of interest in OEMs.
> 
> On the flip side, maybe SRAM will give Campy the motivation they need to actually try to compete on the OEM side. If they don't, I think they're going to become increasingly less relevant... or strangled out until they are only a boutique brand that only makes 2-3 high-end groups.


I hope you are right that Campy will take another crack at the OEM market. I am a Campy fan but I am flabbergasted by their abandonment of the OEM market. I don't know if they consciously gave up on it or just were incapable of making inroads. I think their market share will erode over time. As new riders buy bikes equipped with SRAM and Shimano, they are more likely to stay with those brands when they make their next purchase. Yes, Campy will always command loyally at the upper end, but I don't see that business model as sustainable long term.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Metaluna said:


> Wow, so according to Campy, a 34-29 gear ratio is enough for all conceivable cyclists and cycling applications. I'll try to keep this in mind next time I'm dragging a touring load up a 20% grade.


A very reasonable complaint. But it seems like Campy conceded the serious loaded touring market a long time ago, since that's better served by mtn triples, which Campy hasn't made for, what... 15 years now? 

Appears to be that Campy and SRAM are betting on the road bike future looking like this:

*standard double (53-39):* racers, triathletes, time trialists
*mtn triple:* expedition touring bikes
*road triple:* all but dead
*compact double:* everybody else


Is that fair? Dunno. But it does seem to be what they're thinking.
.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I think the mountain 'compact' will gain popularity over the next few years, too. Rumor is X0, XT, XTR will also be going 2x10 (at least as an option) for 2011.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MarvinK said:


> I think the mountain 'compact' will gain popularity over the next few years, too. Rumor is X0, XT, XTR will also be going 2x10 (at least as an option) for 2011.


Yet another example of Shimano following SRAM's lead? :idea: 

NTTAWWT. That's the way every industry and/or market works, more or less. There are innovators, there are successful fast followers, and then there is the roadkill.
.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

MarvinK said:


> I think the mountain 'compact' will gain popularity over the next few years, too. Rumor is X0, XT, XTR will also be going 2x10 (at least as an option) for 2011.


Ritchey had them all beat with his 2x9 setup he had back before 9 speed MTB cassettes existed. I've been running 2x9 on my mountain bikes for years (at least 10).


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Wheelman55 said:


> Then we all better hope that they get their quality and precision up with the other two that they are running over.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## OES (Jan 23, 2002)

Sun Tour died because it lost the OEM market. Emphasize the word 'lost.' I'm flabbergasted by Campy making it a strategy to abandon OEM.



DaveG said:


> I hope you are right that Campy will take another crack at the OEM market. I am a Campy fan but I am flabbergasted by their abandonment of the OEM market. I don't know if they consciously gave up on it or just were incapable of making inroads. I think their market share will erode over time. As new riders buy bikes equipped with SRAM and Shimano, they are more likely to stay with those brands when they make their next purchase. Yes, Campy will always command loyally at the upper end, but I don't see that business model as sustainable long term.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*volume...*

There is more to success than volume. There are plenty of companies making high quality products at lower volumes, without going out of business. There is most likley little profit at the low end. Campy is just concentrating at the higher end.

They are also not making any effort to increase their US market, since they raised prices by 50-75% at the wholesale level for US based sellers. Now you have buy from the UK or pay a huge penalty. Prices have changed little from European sellers.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

C-40 said:


> There is more to success than volume. There are plenty of companies making high quality products at lower volumes, without going out of business. There is most likley little profit at the low end. Campy is just concentrating at the higher end.
> 
> They are also not making any effort to increase their US market, since they raised prices by 50-75% at the wholesale level for US based sellers. Now you have buy from the UK or pay a huge penalty. Prices have changed little from European sellers.


Self-niche-ification could be a sound profit-seeking strategy. It could also be the early stages of a death-spiral. Hard to say, hope it's not the latter.

Their moves regarding their US prices are a bit mystifying even so, I must say.
.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*time will tell*



C-40 said:


> There is more to success than volume. There are plenty of companies making high quality products at lower volumes, without going out of business. There is most likley little profit at the low end. Campy is just concentrating at the higher end.
> 
> They are also not making any effort to increase their US market, since they raised prices by 50-75% at the wholesale level for US based sellers. Now you have buy from the UK or pay a huge penalty. Prices have changed little from European sellers.


Until recently, Campy made Veloce, Mirage, and Xenon, which appear to me to be attempts to compete with 105, Tiagra, Sora etc. Those are not high-end groups. They still have Veloce in the line-up. Maybe someone in the industry can add to this but I would expect a lot of profit at the lower end of the market since that is where the big volume of sales are and where most bikes sold are spec'ed. How many separate groups are sold compared to fully assembled bikes? Plus more volume equals overall lower manufacturering costs and and more money for R&D. Campy lost a huge market share in the late 80's and 90's to what I would say was some complacency and a poor sense of the market. But even then they were still getting spec'ed on OEM bikes. Sure, they bounced back with good design, some new innovation, and good offerings, but they lost the OEM market anyway. With SRAM coming in and taking market share from both Shimano and Campy, I think Campy is making another mistake. I do not see how raising prices in the US is a good move - are you saying they are trying to speed up their demise in the US market? Why? Some business pundits would say that to stay viable, you have to grow the business. With SHimano and SRAM having offerings at the high-end even winning that market segment is difficult. Maybe they can survive with having a niche market, but I suspect over time they will lose out. I suspect in a few years we will both know the answer to that


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

C-40 said:


> *There is more to success than volume. There are plenty of companies making high quality products at lower volumes, without going out of business. * There is most likley little profit at the low end. Campy is just concentrating at the higher end.
> 
> They are also not making any effort to increase their US market, since they raised prices by 50-75% at the wholesale level for US based sellers. Now you have buy from the UK or pay a huge penalty. Prices have changed little from European sellers.


True. Many people seem to have forgotten the days before mass-produced crap from China. This is why that stuff is bad for the economy over-all...it cheapens the product. Just like bike shops that sell new bikes for less than the minimum retail are causing people to think that everyone else is priced too high. No, we just don't want to be high-volume bike mass-merchants. I like actually knowing and talking to my customers.

Campy does seem to have something against the US though. Maybe it's all the posers.


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

Sounds like Campy is trying to find a low-volume, high-margin niche. It can work, but it's risky. But they may not have had any choice. Trying to compete with companies like Shimano that can mass produce high-quality product at relatively low cost (to them) is probably a little like trying to compete with Intel: one or two companies (e.g. SRAM) might manage it, but more likely you'll get steamrollered. 

Anyway, I hope they stick around. I'm not ready to give up my 13-29 cassette option .


----------



## roadnsnh (May 26, 2009)

*just my opiinion*

This thread is probably long enough, but I need to provide a senior citizen point of view. I had a double--the usual 39/52 and 13-23, 13-28 (7 speed) for many years, and it handled the hills of New Hampshire pretty well into my middle 60s. I agree with those who have said ride what you like. I think that none of the posts have addressed the passing of years. Now having turned 70, I'm pretty happy to have a triple 30/42/52 and 12-25, and I can still ride the hills of New Hampshire and even spin up the hills, and my knees are still in good condition.. If I get any older I might go to 13-28 at the back. I do my own wrenching, and I haven't had any difficulty with adjustment. Shifting has not been bad, either. Riding the time trials at the Senior Games has been good with this setup. I agree that indexed front shifting is unnecessary. I'd go back to a downtube front shifter if I could.

I'm happy with my triple. But then, I'm not trying to be a cool, elite rider. Just want to keep riding as long as I can.

Leland
NH


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

I sure hope I am riding whem I am 70+ (I'm 48 now). I sure hope I can find a triple then. Not sure I understand the sentiment of those that think the demise of the triple is a good thing.


----------



## thoran (Aug 1, 2009)

I hope this isn't a completely silly question, but if we ignore the concerns with covering such a large range in the cassette with a finite number of cogs, is there any drawback to the medium-cage RD? As an untrained, uncompetitive beginner, I can certainly see the appeal of having a lower gear available. I currently have an 11-28 with a compact double, and I sometimes find myself wishing I had something just a little bit lower on some of the steeper hills I've attempted to traverse. If I were to buy into what SRAM is selling, but then through continued improvement in my power/weight ratio eventually decide that I didn't need the wide range and would prefer something a little more conventional in my rear cassette, could I just change the cassette and be happy or would I find myself regretting having the medium-cage RD for some reason (other than the added few grams, that is)?


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

Weight and supposedly slightly quicker shifting (I can't tell the difference, but I don't race) are the only reasons to switch to a shorter cage. A longer cage will always work with any gearing combination that a short cage can handle.


By the way, anyone know if the new SRAM group is out yet? While I don't fully buy their argument against the triple, I could certainly see some uses for a 10-speed 11-32 on my triple crank bike. Kind of ironic I guess.


----------



## Wheelman55 (Jul 10, 2009)

thoran said:


> I hope this isn't a completely silly question, but if we ignore the concerns with covering such a large range in the cassette with a finite number of cogs, is there any drawback to the medium-cage RD? As an untrained, uncompetitive beginner, I can certainly see the appeal of having a lower gear available. I currently have an 11-28 with a compact double, and I sometimes find myself wishing I had something just a little bit lower on some of the steeper hills I've attempted to traverse. If I were to buy into what SRAM is selling, but then through continued improvement in my power/weight ratio eventually decide that I didn't need the wide range and would prefer something a little more conventional in my rear cassette, could I just change the cassette and be happy or would I find myself regretting having the medium-cage RD for some reason (other than the added few grams, that is)?


There shouldn't be any drawbacks to your suggestion...other than what you mention in your first sentence. If you are already running SRAM then go for it as this will most likely work just fine. If you are looking at purchasing a new bike or group you could go with SRAM double or Shimano triple. To make the triple into a double (when your legs are stronger as you say) you would purchase a compact crank to fit the BB. Long story short...there are options.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

I hate triples, but that may be due to the fact that I have a 2005 Shimano 105 FD that is finicky. I'm putting in an R700 this week - so long as I get the lead out.

In any case, I think that SRAM is spot on for recreational bikes. For an 'enthusiast' bike I don't think going above 11x28 with a 10sp cassette is a good idea (the jumps to the larger cogs would just suck). 11x32 might be OK when companies are putting out a 12sp cassette.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Metaluna said:


> Weight and supposedly slightly quicker shifting (I can't tell the difference, but I don't race) are the only reasons to switch to a shorter cage. A longer cage will always work with any gearing combination that a short cage can handle.
> 
> 
> By the way, *anyone know if the new SRAM group is out yet?* While I don't fully buy their argument against the triple, I could certainly see some uses for a 10-speed 11-32 on my triple crank bike. Kind of ironic I guess.


It won't be released until October.


----------



## thoran (Aug 1, 2009)

AJL said:


> I hate triples, but that may be due to the fact that I have a 2005 Shimano 105 FD that is finicky. I'm putting in an R700 this week - so long as I get the lead out.
> 
> In any case, I think that SRAM is spot on for recreational bikes. For an 'enthusiast' bike I don't think going above 11x28 with a 10sp cassette is a good idea (the jumps to the larger cogs would just suck). 11x32 might be OK when companies are putting out a 12sp cassette.



My 11-28 that I eluded to is 9 speed, so I think I could get along with an 11-32 10 speed pretty easily. Then again, I'd say I have the legs of a "recreationist" (for now!) though the rest of me seems to be squarely in the enthusiast camp. This is my first road bike, so maybe it's simply a matter of not knowing what I'm missing until I've had a chance to try it.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> LOL, funny. :lol:
> 
> But... is it really? I can think of a few climbs in my neck of the woods that would be difficult for some ppl even with a 39x27 (about the widest-range cassette I'd want, on Shimano/SRAM at least).
> 
> ...


My comb-over remark was, I think, opposite to how you took it.

A comb over is for those who are bald but don't want to look bald.

A compact double is for those who need the low gears of a triple but don't have the self esteem to admit it. They opt for the compact double instead of the far more functional and versitile triple thinking that "since it's a double, I will look strong".

There is nothing a compact double does that a triple doesn't do better.

Shifting - less large ring shifting on a triple, and it functions as well.

Rear gear spacing: triple requires smaller big cog for same gearing, therefore smaller gaps are possible.

Highest and lowest gears: you can get both higher and lower gearing with a triple. .

As woodie allen would say, while I think compact doubles are indeed "good enough" for a lot of riders, the whole idea of them being better than good quality road triples and causing those triples to go away is a "travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.”


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

The difference on the high end is ONE gear--and that's assuming you're running an 11 on both the triple and the compact. I think a lot of us aren't too proud to admit we aren't pushing a 53x11 or spinning out on a 50x11 on anything other than big downhills. I also suspect most of us feel very little need to go 60mph on those downhills and aren't interested in the extra complexity of a triple because of one gear. If I had a triple I'd never use the granny gear for any normal riding. 

I can ride a compact with an 11-23 and have plenty of close range gears--I'll miss that one downhill gear. On the flip side, I can ride up long grades with a tight range . If I had a standard double, I'd have to run a wider spaced cassette to get the same low gear... and then I'd have more spacing between gears. I could put a triple on and still ride an 11x23, but it just seems like extra weight, extra complexity and a little loss of traditional road feel of a double... with the addition of one high gear and a bunch of low gears that I don't need.

I'm not embarassed to admit I don't need a 53x11... if that means I have low self esteem, so be it. In my mind, a triple makes me a pack rat... carrying a bunch of extra junk I don't need.


----------



## Metaluna (Aug 26, 2005)

AJL said:


> For an 'enthusiast' bike I don't think going above 11x28 with a 10sp cassette is a good idea (the jumps to the larger cogs would just suck). 11x32 might be OK when companies are putting out a 12sp cassette.



I don't get the obsession with 11-to-pie-plate cassettes either (SRAM even has an 11-36 now in their 10-speed MTB lineup, though that's a different market with different needs). It would be nice to see more of them starting at 12t or 13t, like Campagnolo has.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

I'd choose a compact double any day over a triple simply because, like MarvinK said, it's less equipment.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Camilo said:


> There is nothing a compact double does that a triple doesn't do better.


Errr... you mean like Q-factor? Weight? Simplicity? Aerodynamics? Aesthetics? :idea: 

Don't get me wrong, all the things that you listed as being advantages for the triple are quite true. But there are some things going for the compact too. I think you can make an argument either way. 

SRAM and Campy are probably jumping the gun in trying to put the triple out to pasture for road bikes. But at some point, we're going to have so many cogs in the back that many of the triple's key advantages are going to be minimized or effectively all but gone– you'll be able to have very wide range gearing _with_ small jumps between gears _with_ a double. 

Some would argue that day is already here, with Campy's 11-spd 12-29 cassette combined with a compact. Others would say, nope, not yet, I gotta have an 11t, or 34/29 still isn't low enough for me, or I want even smaller jumps still, etc. etc. 

But, even if you're in the latter group, it still does seem kinda inevitable someday, dosen't it? Unless someone can convince the component makers to stop adding cogs...

The funny thing is, add enough cogs, and some of the double's advantages start to become disadvantages. I don't think it'd be that simple to shift through a 15 cog cluster, for example, nor would such a cassette be light...
.


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Some would argue that day is already here, with Campy's 11-spd 12-29 cassette combined with a compact.


If you have a 28.6mm seat tube, it should be possible for the manufacturers to come up with a triple that has the same Q-factor as a double.

With that in mind, it may be preferable to use a 50/42/34 triple instead of a 50/34 double with the 11 speed 12-29 cassette.

The reason being that you will have a simpler front shift sequence, better chainline, and longer cassette life with the larger 42 ring often being used instead of the smaller 34 ring. Also, there must be improved drivetrain efficiency (ie. more power delivered to the rear wheel for the same rider input) when the chainline is straighter.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rickhotrod said:


> If you have a 28.6mm seat tube, it should be possible for the manufacturers to come up with a triple that has the same Q-factor as a double.


And yet, they don't. 



> _Also, there must be improved drivetrain efficiency (ie. more power delivered to the rear wheel for the same rider input) when the chainline is straighter._


There was a Johns Hopkins/Shimano study on this, and how straight the chainline was didn't have a significant effect on power transmission, surprisingly. 

The things that did were how big the rear cog was (larger rear cogs = the chain was bent at a less severe angle, resulting in higher efficiency), chain tension (more power applied to the pedals = higher chain tension = higher efficiency), and RPMs (higher RPMs = chain running through the bends more often = lower efficiency).
.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Camilo said:


> There is nothing a compact double does that a triple doesn't do better.”


A compact double sports two rings instead of three. That's much better to me.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

ghost6 said:


> A compact double sports two rings instead of three. That's much better to me.


My comb-over reflects less light, that's much better for me  . I'm just being a horses' patoot now. I really do't care that much, just think it's a fun debate... in which I'm right of course.


----------



## sometimerider (Sep 21, 2007)

Camilo said:


> I really do't care that much, just think it's a fun debate... in which I'm right of course.


Aren't we all?
View attachment 194510


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Camilo said:


> There is nothing a compact double does that a triple doesn't do better.
> 
> Shifting - less large ring shifting on a triple, and it functions as well.


Yep, shifts OK after every adjustment (twice a season) - I suppose if I adjusted it six times a season I'd be a bit happier. Now maybe there are triple gruppos that are better than my 2005 105 FD, but I'm really looking forward to riding with my new R700 this year. 

I only stuck with the triple due to a couple of injuries which are no longer a problem, so now I don't use the granny ring. So, yes, they are good for some people and can be handy when an injury causes a large drop in power output.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Metaluna said:


> I don't get the obsession with 11-to-pie-plate cassettes either (SRAM even has an 11-36 now in their 10-speed MTB lineup, though that's a different market with different needs). It would be nice to see more of them starting at 12t or 13t, like Campagnolo has.


If you are running a compact, it's easy to run out 50x12 down hills. 50x11 gives us people like me (who bike mainly for fitness, and love of cycling) a decent top end. Though, I'm moving to a 12-27 this year, so so much for that.

The other thing is that with an 11-32, I'd be fine with a 53/39 up front (though a 13-32 would probably work just fine, and would be OK with a 10sp cassette).


----------



## rickhotrod (Apr 16, 2009)

AJL said:


> 50x11 gives us people like me (who bike mainly for fitness, and love of cycling) a decent top end. Though, I'm moving to a 12-27 this year, so so much for that.


The problem with adding an 11 sprocket to the cassette is that you lose a sprocket somewhere else where it could be more useful.

Even with 15 gears i would want something like 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,27,30,33,36.

On a 100 mile ride, who would want to waste energy pushing 50/11? It's better to save energy for the steep climbs.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

rickhotrod said:


> The problem with adding an 11 sprocket to the cassette is that you lose a sprocket somewhere else where it could be more useful.
> 
> Even with 15 gears i would want something like 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,27,30,33,36.
> 
> On a 100 mile ride, who would want to waste energy pushing 50/11? It's better to save energy for the steep climbs.


A) I thought 13-32 would be OK with a 10sp (& 53x39), with a 12sp it would work out pretty well. (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32)

B) Hey, because sometimes it's fun! (don't tell my wife). Besides, I'm still working on breaking 50km (which should be easy this year). 100 miles is a couple years and ~45 lbs off :blush2:


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

I am a stranger to this discussion because I have a double on my road bike, which is sufficient for the area I train in (lots of short climbs, but I can power up on them). 

However, I would really like to have some bigger gears to do longer climbs with steep sections.

I have never tried a triple on a road bike, so I don't know about the Q-factor, but IMO, a triple offers a lot of advantages in comparison to a compact. You can keep the 53 and 39 chainrings for power on the flats and if you eventually run out of gears on steep climbs you can still go to the 30 ring.

It also enables you to have a cassette with close range. So you avoid big jumps not only on the cassette, but also on the crankset. I have been reading that compacts often cause chain rub on the FD or even that the chain catches the big ring in certain situations.

I don't understand how people want more and more gears in the rear, but look down on having a triple in the front.


----------

