# Double or Triple crankset??



## rusty4x (May 14, 2006)

I live in Albuquerque NM, i'm buying a new road group and i'm not sure which crank i should get??? This is my first road bike, I do allot of mountain biking. I will be riding in the mountains. Will buying a double make me a stronger rider?


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Well*



rusty4x said:


> I live in Albuquerque NM, i'm buying a new road group and i'm not sure which crank i should get??? This is my first road bike, I do allot of mountain biking. I will be riding in the mountains. Will buying a double make me a stronger rider?



If you are a strong mountain biker, you may get by with a double, most stronger road riders will only ride with a double. That being said, if you are a newcomer, and are not a strong mountain bike rider, a triple may be right up your alley. I personally choose a compact. I get the benefits of both then.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

If you think that grinding in a high gear will make you a stronger rider, you can simply choose not to shift down. But with the triple or compact, if you run into a hill that's unexpectedly steep or run out of energy on a long ride, you will have the low gears if you need them.


----------



## dannybgoode (Feb 3, 2005)

If you're buying a road bike you may also wish to consider a compact chainset. This is a double but with smaller (and therefore easy to turn) cogs on. A normal chainset wiill have a 39/53 set of cogs and a compact usually a 36/50. If you live somewhere hilly this can be a nice compromise by being a 'proper' roadie and running a double but without struggling on the hills too much!


----------



## Lost on the Backroads (Feb 8, 2006)

*A no doubter in my mind, but.....*

Triple, Triple, Triple!!!
I have been riding competitively a few months and can affirm that eric is right. If you think you don't need it, you will regret it when you do. I just got through a 50 mile RR, and wish I had that 3rd little puppy at my first real climb. With that being said, it is true that strong riders (which I am obvoiusly not, yet) tend to use dual, and dual will suffice. But the words Albuquerque and mountains rang out in your statements, and that is all I needed to proclaim----triple, triple, triple. But don't take my word for it, ask you LBS in your area....there is very little incentive for them to lie about it. Make sure they tell you about teeth, because danny is right too!!!
Best of luck.


----------



## KonaMan (Sep 22, 2004)

rusty4x said:


> I live in Albuquerque NM, i'm buying a new road group and i'm not sure which crank i should get??? This is my first road bike, I do allot of mountain biking. I will be riding in the mountains. Will buying a double make me a stronger rider?



1. If you don't do a lot of hills, or the hills around you don't have a very steep grade to them, then you don't need the tripple, you could go standard or compact double.

2. Only one thing will make you a stronger rider. Ride more. The double, the Dura Ace, the Madone 5.2, none of that means squat if you're not spending time in the saddle. The more you ride, the stronger you will get... period. Learning to spin correctly, proper position, good consistent cadence, that makes you stronger.

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger...


----------



## KendleFox (Sep 5, 2005)

*Here in Alamogordo, NM*

I went up to the mountains last weekend.
At 32, 6 foot 190lbs, I'm not ashamed to say I used the granny ring and was wishing for granny's mom  

IMHO from what I've learned here, unless you are already a serious competitive rider, then get a double.

If this is your first road bike, then IMHO you are not ready for a double, based on what I've seen in ALB

If you are serious and want to be competitive, then this won't be your first road bike. 

Go with the 3 rings...


----------



## tlite48 (May 4, 2006)

One other advantage with a triple is you can a close ratio cassette (12x21 or 23) and still have low overall gearing versus a double with a wide ratio cassette (12x27).


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Tiny downside and lots of up with a triple*

That's hilly country there, similar to Reno, where I live. I rode for nearly 20 years with a double, climbed everything around here--but when I bought my Atlantis, Rivendell talked me into a triple crank, and I've been glad since the first day. You'll hear that triples shift less precisely, but...jeez, how hard is it to shift a front derailleur? I can't remember ever missing, and I'm friction, not indexed. The weight is negligible. Put on a triple, but before you do, take off that useless 30t granny and replace it with a 26 or 24.
NOTE: Be sure it will shift with that little ring first. My driveline is a combination of parts from the bin, and it works fine. Might be a problem if you have some carefully engineered gruppo designed by Shimano to require complete replacement rather than $14 worth of new parts whenever something goes wrong.


----------



## fmw (Sep 28, 2005)

rusty4x said:


> Will buying a double make me a stronger rider?


No. Putting on the miles and pushing yourself will make you a stronger rider. What the triple will do is give you a wider range of gears from which to choose. What the double will do is prevent any feelings of inadequacy that might develop because the people on this forum will make you think you should have such feelings.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

Triple vs double?

What is more macho to do on a BIG hill facing you after 50 mi of tough riding?

A. Ride up on a double
B. Ride up on a triple
C. Walk up on a double

Following the traditional rule for multiple-choice test questions, the correct answer is more likely to be 'B'.


----------



## kaboose (Jul 20, 2005)

*uno...dos*

TRES!!!!!

i too mountain bike and even though i don't use the granny much anymore it's nice to have when i've needed it.

only the extreme roadie puritans believe two is enough rrr: 
K


----------



## Terrapin (Aug 1, 2002)

I have yet to figure out why, if there's a choice, people pontificate over whether to get the triple. Get the triple. It gives you a "4x4" gear for going up the steepest climbs, and it's not like it affects your ride when your not using it. The granny gear weighs 60 grams or something. 

I thank god I have it on this one hill on my route that is *vertical*. Everyone with the doubles either walks up it, or grinds it out in painful 20 rpm mode. I just sit back and spin up it.


----------



## paint (Jul 25, 2005)

physasst said:


> I personally choose a compact.


Seconded.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*The heck with gears, ride fixed.*

Shifting and coasting are overrated.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Unless your ego can't stand it (or you enjoy suffering), get a triple. Your knees will thank you later.


----------



## bridges (Jun 20, 2005)

Double is plenty for me, but I had to switch from 12-24 to 12-27 on the rear cogs. I normally ride flat to rolliing hills, but I have ridden Trail Ridge Road in the Rockies and when I used the 27 and if I went any slower I would've fallen over---and that was when I was a beginner.

More gearing increases indecision and mistakes in shifting IMHO.


----------



## jaektaylor (May 13, 2006)

*Double Double*

I know a lot of folks will disagree with this, but I'm a fairly new rider of average ability - not average pro - average Joe/Fred with hairy legs and all - and I ride some fairly good climbs in the mountains of central PA on a double with no problem.

Also - a triple, in my opinion, isn't worth the trouble of having to remember just how far you can go when you are on the top or bottom chain ring before you've got your chain in a bind and bad things start happening. There is also a good deal of overlap in the gearing and I don't think you get enough additional low gears to justify it. 

A double is just more simple in my opinion and provides plenty of range. 

Try riding both and see how they feel. If the triple doesn't bother you and you want the lower gears, go for it.


----------



## HokiePride (Feb 13, 2006)

I have been riding mtn for 3 years and road for 5 months and I just traded in my my triple for a compact double. The shear simplicity of the double is the only way to go. Granted this was a shimano triple that forced you to trim on the middle ring and downshifted to the small ring too easily. Here in the Appalachains a compact is the perfect triple replacement. I wish I had switched sooner.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jaektaylor said:


> I know a lot of folks will disagree with this, but I'm a fairly new rider of average ability - not average pro - average Joe/Fred with hairy legs and all - and I ride some fairly good climbs in the mountains of central PA on a double with no problem.


Maximum elevation state of Pennsylvania: 4862 ft.
Climb from Rio Grande to Sandia Crest in Albuquerque: 5500 ft.
Thanks for playing.


----------



## jaektaylor (May 13, 2006)

*WOW - you must be a real man!*

and much much larger than me in every way!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jaektaylor said:


> and much much larger than me in every way!


Probably, but I've learned not to comment where I really don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## tamu (Apr 16, 2006)

i duno.. most of my bikes only have one chainring in the front.. granted i dont do long road trips.. but even on my mountan bike, an 8 speed, i dont have any problems..

soon to get a fixed.. less gears is more


----------



## bg1229 (May 17, 2006)

*Triple for me*

I ride a triple. I'm 51 and just returning after about a 10 year lay-off. While I'm sure the terrain here in Jersey doesn't nearly compare with NMex, I've found that the third set is valuable at this stage for me. I ride between 30 and 40 mi twice weekly at this point and have been challenging myself on some of the hills in my area. While I can't speak of percentage of grade on those hills, I can say that some are long and with a steady incline. My biggest fear is running out of gears, slowing down to 2mph, and being unable to unclip at that point. Seriously though, until I am able to endure a more vigorous ride, why not take advantage the extra help.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Triple, triple, triple. No downside, all up. Or a compact...*

I live in Reno, where the alititude and topography are similar to yours. Lance Armstrong may suffer from the alleged disadvantages of a triple (slower shifting, 4 ounces extra weight), but I never have felt them. The single best change I've made in 30+ years of cycling came when I realized the standard 53-39 double gave me about a dozen gears I never used. I ordered a new bike with a 46-36-26, then installed the same setup on an older one. No regrets ever.
Having said that, though, if I were going to build ANOTHER bike (I promised my wife I wouldn't until I need a recumbent), I'd probably put on a compact, something like 48-34. But under no circumstances a 53t ring.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

A new roadie heading into mountains and that's not certain what kind of mountains can be tackled should be on a triple...


----------



## spyro (Aug 3, 2004)

i agree in your neck of the woods a triple sounds great.

where i live, i should have gotten a double. I have to tweek the adjustments on my triple WAY too often to keep it shifting well. On my last ride i hit a hill where i needed that granny gear... and the darn thing wouldn't shift into it!

BTW to the guy with the friction shifts, those are actually easier to tweek the front der on than the indexed easier to keep from gettting annoying chain rub.


----------



## Elfstone (Jun 27, 2006)

I ride in the Folsom Sacramento and San Francisco California area. I do fine with a compact 50/34 by Shimano. (SG-X 10S 50-F)  

I find that it fits my needs. I've always used a doubles, till now. The compact works really smooth and I don't feel I'm missing anything by not getting a triple...  

Peace


----------



## Doc_D (Mar 16, 2006)

I ride a Giant TCR Limited with a compact double (10 speed cassette).. I really like it. I know the Giant OCR Limited comes with a triple so let's look at the ratios between the two bikes.

The TCR is a 36/50 with a 12/26 cassette. The OCR is a 30/39/52 with a 12/25 cassette. The lowest gear (small ring, big cog) on the TCR is 1.38:1. The lowest gear on the OCR is 1.2:1. The total range of the small ring on the TCR is from 1.38:1 to 3:1. So the TCR's average ratio change from cog to cog while on the small ring is 0.162:1. So to put it into perspective, the OCR's triple would basically be equivilent to having one more cog to shift down into on the TCR.

At the big end the TCR's highest ratio is 4.16:1. The OCR's highest ratio is 4.3:1. The average cog to cog ratio change on the TCR's big gear is 0.224:1. So on the top end, the OCR really doesn't even offer 1 cog more worth of top gear over the TCR's compact double.

So in the end, based on my suspect math (please correct me if I'm wrong), the OCR's triple would be like my TCR having an extra shift down below my lowest gear and less than an extra shift up higher than my highest gear. For me I prefer the simplicity, smoothness and weight savings of the compact double over the very limited gear ratio advantage that the triple offers.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

What if you put a 12/27 cassette on the OCR?

What does a 32 upper on both bikes look like?





Doc_D said:


> I ride a Giant TCR Limited with a compact double (10 speed cassette).. I really like it. I know the Giant OCR Limited comes with a triple so let's look at the ratios between the two bikes.
> 
> The TCR is a 36/50 with a 12/26 cassette. The OCR is a 30/39/52 with a 12/25 cassette. The lowest gear (small ring, big cog) on the TCR is 1.38:1. The lowest gear on the OCR is 1.2:1. The total range of the small ring on the TCR is from 1.38:1 to 3:1. So the TCR's average ratio change from cog to cog while on the small ring is 0.162:1. So to put it into perspective, the OCR's triple would basically be equivilent to having one more cog to shift down into on the TCR.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris H (Jul 7, 2005)

jaektaylor said:


> There is also a good deal of overlap in the gearing and I don't think you get enough additional low gears to justify it.


It's just that one combination at the bottom that matters when you need it...


----------



## vol245 (Jan 20, 2002)

I have a Campy Centaur triple with a 53/42/30 and 13-26. I had a 12-25, but wanted the 18 more than the 12. I live in the flats so I thought the triple would be good for mt rides and it is. Around here I live in the 42. I can get up most of the hills in my area in the 42-21. Even though I don't like the looks of a triple, when a big enough hill gets in front of me I sure am glad I have it. I agree with Cory that the 53 is overkill for my purposes. I had a choice of a 30-40-50 and at the time thought the 50 wasn't enough. I spent a long time deciding on the gearing and what I have works for me.


----------



## Andy69 (Jun 14, 2008)

I have a triple (30/42/50). I won't give it up. I've got a 12-25 cassette so I can still get up to speed when the time comes, yet when I ride somewhere will serious hills, the gearing is there.

There are a lot of gears I don't use, though. The geometry is all wrong to use the 12 tooth rear cog with the 30, so I end up using the lower 3 or 4 cogs only and when I want somethign higher I shift up to the 42. Same thing with the 50 only it's the larger cogs that don;t get used. I can pretty much use the whole range with the 42 though.


----------



## cdsmith (Apr 13, 2008)

When I bought my bike last year I wanted a triple (first road bike - after years of mountain biking... ). I'm 54 with knees that have seen too much abuse from other various activities (karate is hell on knees!)... I've yet to use the granny, but it is there if I want/need it! 
cd


----------



## g-dawg (Jan 30, 2009)

I was talked into a compact double 50/34 in front 12/27 in back. I can climb any hill in my area, some which are very steep. The problem I encounter is that when I shift down in front, I have to shift up 3 or 4 gears in the back to keep cadence close. This causes me to lose a lot of momentum. I think a triple with a 50/39 /30 would be the best all around combination.


----------



## JulesYK (Jul 2, 2007)

*Very good point*



g-dawg said:


> I was talked into a compact double 50/34 in front 12/27 in back. I can climb any hill in my area, some which are very steep. The problem I encounter is that when I shift down in front, I have to shift up 3 or 4 gears in the back to keep cadence close. This causes me to lose a lot of momentum. I think a triple with a 50/39 /30 would be the best all around combination.


This is the issue with any big jump up front. My bikes are 50/34, 12-27 (or 12-25), and the gap up front is something that probably makes me cross-chain more than I should. That said, it's fairly easy to get used make the necessary adjustments when dropping down to the little ring, and I generally really like the compact crankset. I run Shimano, and it would be nice if they had a cassette that dropped the 12 to fill in one of the gaps in the sequence. I'm there a heck of a lot more than I'm ever in the 50-12 combination. There are some "B" cassettes that do this in the old 6600 Ultegra group, and I may give those a shot.


----------

