# Double vs. Triple Chainring



## Ben S (Jul 14, 2002)

My current bike has a triple chainring, but I'm looking to upgrade and the next level of bikes are mostly double chainring (racers?). I understand that triples are for climbing, and I guess doubles weigh less, so are for racing, crits, etc. I do not race (though it would be fun if I was younger and had more time to devote) and there are no mountains or even hills of any degree where I live. I find myself spinning in the small ring once in a while at the end of a tough ride, just to take it easy. My question is whether the gearing is different b/w a double and triple chainring. In other words, is a double chainring merely a triple without the small ring, or are the gears such that the small ring on a double contains some of the same gears found on the small ring of a triple - if this makes sense. I'm just wondering if I should stick with a triple or go to a double.


----------



## gatman (Aug 3, 2005)

They are not the same. My double is a 39/53 I think my buddies triple is a 30/42/52.

I would like to give my opinion on this. I completely understand why people would want the triple. I used to think that if I got a bike it would have one. That might be because I have been riding mtb's for a long time. But, I have done something in the last two years. I have started to ride singlespeed on my mtb. It was amazing the things I could climb that I thought were never possible on one. So, I have changed my thought prosses.(good thing since my used bike that I purchased has a double) 

If you don't have it, then you will just do what is needed to be done to climb the hill. If you have the little ring, you will go to it much faster than you actually need to. I have seen too many people shift to the easy gear because there is a hill in front of them and they didn't even try to climb it in the gear they were in.

- edited for typo that made me look like I was cussing


----------



## DW4477 (Feb 4, 2005)

*Most are different*

Most doubles are 53/39. Most triples are 52/42/36. So you get sort of an in between chain ring with a triple which is very useful over a wide range of conditions including moderate climbs, headwinds etc. The middle ring is good from probably 10mph up to over 20. You then still have a bigger ring and smaller ring when you need them. You can get a triple on a higher end bike.


----------



## Lowend (Mar 29, 2002)

I have a Triple but never use the small chainring. Just like Gatman, my Mt bike is a single speed, so I try to climb every hill without using too low of a gear. I believe that riding my single speed has made me a better climber. I can attack hills and get up them faster. But then again, there are no long (mile) steady climbs in my area. Just short and steep.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 19, 2004)

If you live in an area with no mountains you should get a double. The others are correct about the gearing options on doubles. 

For me it's triple all the way. Im over 40, over weight, have the knees of a 89 year old man and I live in Idaho. I could make it up 95% of everything I ride with just a double, but it's that other 5% of the hills that keep me in the triple. Some of you know the hills Im talking about. You're in 30/25 and still trying to shift for something easier. We even have Spring days when the wind is howling sooo hard that I have to drop into the 42 ring to have any hope of spinning in the flats. Now try mixing those howling wind days with a hill that looks more like a wall.


----------



## Ben S (Jul 14, 2002)

I am looking to buy a new bike, not to upgrade my existing bike's cranks.
It just seems that the intermediate level racing type bikes mostly have double chainrings, though I know some are available with triples as well. I was just trying to determine whether I should change from my current triple to a new bike with a double.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

Are you looking for a new bike or just the cranks? 
If you're getting a new bike then by all means goto a double, but if you are looking to just upgrade the cranks its just not worth the money IMO. There is nothing wrong with triple other than maybe your friends giving you some [email protected] The only real adavantage from going from a triple to a double is the weight savings. If you're not racing then why? I just can't understand all the threads of people wanting to go from triples to doubles. The compacts and the doubles to triple I can understand if you have lotsa hills but the rest got me stumped. Is there something that I am missing?


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

I just bought a new bike and went with the double. My old bike, a Trek 2300 triple I had for 5 years. I live in an area with moderate hills (nothing really over 2 miles and avg 7-8 % as worse case). I went with a 12-25 rear cassette and that that on occasion I would use the granny gear on days where I just wasn't feeling well. Not becasue i had to but because I had IT! lol More lazy than anything. The biggest difference for me has been finding a comfort zone on the double. I was used to riding just about everything in the middle ring up front. Now things are different and I can't quite seem to find the "right" gear for my comfort zone. All in all other than that I can't say theres been much of a difference. I still make it up everything and on the 50+ rides I am still tired but not overly so.
Just for your reference I originally got the triple due to surgery prior to buying the bike adn wanted to play it safe.

P.S. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk but like I said I just don't get it.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

*YOU need to analyze YOUR needs.*

Not trying to cop out, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with those who say you should get a double, but this kind of question simply cannot be answered blind, over the Internet. Words like "hill" and "mountain" means different things to different people, and different riders have different levels of fitness.

Do this: figure out what inch-gear choices you have available on your current bike, and when you go riding pay close attention to which of those you use, and how much. Then do the same calculations for the typical double. You will quickly be able to see if a candidate bike has gearing low enough for you. If the choices are close and you don't spend a whole lot of time spinning ultra-low gears, that's probably okay; it just means you'll occasionally suffer a bit more than you're used to. Or perhaps you could get a different cassette for the double that'll get you to where you need to be. But if you spend a LOT of time in gears lower than doubles typically have available, you'll probably need to stick with a triple.


----------



## Nigeyy (Mar 30, 2003)

I swapped from a triple to a double (so I can speak from experience!). I'm with Allez Rouge on this.

I live in only a slightly hilly area -and as Allez Rouge rightly pointed out, to some this may qualify as being flat or very hilly to others. Regardless, I found on my triple I almost never went into to the small chain ring. In fact, I only went into it once when I rode up a mountain. To me, I felt a triple was a waste for the kind of riding I do 99% of the time. I did not want a third chainring I basically did not use.

Knowing this, and knowing I was upgrading the drivechain during winter, I chose carefully the rear cassette to give me the equivalent gear ratio my middle ring and biggest rear cog gave me. Initially early this year after some months off cycling it felt harder, but I put this down to psychological factors and the fact I was lacking fitness. Now I can't really tell a difference at all. 

So, it's really up to you -where you ride, and what strength and fitness you have -kind of hard to answer on a message board ;-) Either way, you should calculate your gear ratios carefully -with the choices in cassettes, this shouldn't be too difficult.

One other solution: a compact set of chainrings (e.g. the small chainring is alot smaller than a "normal" double chainring set) is supposed to give you the best of both worlds; a double that has some lower gearing. Since I don't think I need this, I haven't investigated it, but because of the popularity of these, I assume they work nicely. The only downside would have to be the difference in gear ratios?

And a last thought..... you haven't got Upgradeitis have you? It's a particularly nasty thing to catch, and often results in a lighter wallet with no noticeable cycling performance difference...... For the money you may need to invest (new crank, bb, front derailleur, possibly rear) you might get a nicer piece of equipment for your bike -wheels are a good investment.

Edit: oops sorry, I just saw your post about wanting to get a new bike rather than upgrading your current bike. Ignore the last paragraph! If you don't need to go into the small chainring with where you currently ride, I'd say get a double. If you are unsure, stay with a triple.


----------



## DW4477 (Feb 4, 2005)

psycleridr said:


> ...as used to riding just about everything in the middle ring up front. Now things are different and I can't quite seem to find the "right" gear for my comfort zone. All in all other than that I can't say theres been much of a difference.


Not finding the "right" gear sounds like a pretty big difference.


----------



## bikejr (Jul 30, 2004)

*...*



gatman said:


> They are not the same. My double is a 39/53 I think my buddies triple is a 30/42/52.
> 
> I would like to give my opinion on this. I completely understand why people would want the triple. I used to think that if I got a bike it would have one. That might be because I have been riding mtb's for a long time. But, I have done something in the last two years. I have started to ride singlespeed on my mtb. It was amazing the things I could climb that I thought were never possible on one. So, I have changed my thought prosses.(good thing since my used bike that I purchased has a double)
> 
> ...


 I tend to agree. I learned to climb on a double and find I haul myself up just about anything I need to. As a result I developed over the years perhaps a slower climbing cadence in general. Good or bad, I dunno. Now I don't feel right trying to spin faster on a climb. I run a 27 in the back when I know some steeper hills of any length are on the route. Still even sometimes this is tough, but I manage to get up.


----------



## Ben S (Jul 14, 2002)

Thanks for all your help.
I don't really want to get a new bike or upgrade at this time.
Unfortunately, it's become painfully clear that my current bike which I've had for over a year and logged over a thousand miles is a size too big for me. I develop back and shoulder pain, can't reach the hoods comfortably. This was my first road bike and I didn't understand proper fit when I bought it. The LBS did a lousy job of fitting me. We swapped the OEM stem for I think a 90mm. Now I've been told that we can't go any smaller on the stem. I'm getting more serious about riding and would like to start logging more miles. Anyway, the bikes I'm being shown are mainly double rings, and that's how this question came up. BTW, I'm not going back to the same LBS and will be sure to get the proper fit this time.


----------



## Nigeyy (Mar 30, 2003)

You know, you might be 100% right. But.... how do you know you have the wrong size? Just curious. I got professionally fitted for my bike and it came off the cost of the bike when I bought it, so I've always had confidence in it. Is there any way you can verify the frame is the wrong size before you commit any more dollars? Have you tried turning the hoods up, moving the hoods on the bars or a shallow set of handlebars? (both these would effectively move the hoods closer to you -different handlebars can vary your reach to the hoods tremondously, you'd be surprized). Sharper angled stem? Saddle angle? Saddle position on the rails? (though be careful here as you are changing the position of where your knee is relative to the pedal spindle, but it might be incorrect in the first place anyway).

Don't get me wrong, the lbs may not have sized you properly ("hey you're definitely a 50cm -and we just happen to have a bike that size we need to clear stock on!"), but maybe they did. There might be other factors that are causing you issues that could be very cheap to at least try to see if it's the problem.

Apologies if you've tried these already, thought it might be worthwhile posting just in case.





Ben S said:


> Thanks for all your help.
> I don't really want to get a new bike or upgrade at this time.
> Unfortunately, it's become painfully clear that my current bike which I've had for over a year and logged over a thousand miles is a size too big for me. I develop back and shoulder pain, can't reach the hoods comfortably. This was my first road bike and I didn't understand proper fit when I bought it. The LBS did a lousy job of fitting me. We swapped the OEM stem for I think a 90mm. Now I've been told that we can't go any smaller on the stem. I'm getting more serious about riding and would like to start logging more miles. Anyway, the bikes I'm being shown are mainly double rings, and that's how this question came up. BTW, I'm not going back to the same LBS and will be sure to get the proper fit this time.


----------



## Ben S (Jul 14, 2002)

I've tried turning the hoods up, we switched to a smaller stem, I played with the saddle fore and aft and we know that creates other problems. Last weekend I took my bike to a different LBS to have some minor repairs done. I asked a couple of the guys there to watch me on the bike, they told me the bike is too big, and there is no smaller stem available. I rode 3 bikes all one size smaller, although very briefly. One fit perfect out of the box, I could reach the hoods without laying my whole body out. This confirmed my prior thoughts after trying to adjust the bike and doing my own calculations based on some internet fit tests. I suppose I could pay for a professional fit to confirm my feelings. Honestly, if you told me my current bike can be retrofitted to me I would gladly do it at any reasonable cost. I just don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to fix something that's not fixable. You know, there is only so much can do without altering your set up such that you create an entirely different ride (e.g., from racer to touring). All comments are appreciated, though.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Why you should get a triple.*

I usually ride single speed or fixed gear 6 days a week and geared perhaps once a week. I know that a cyclist can be very happy with very few gears and completly understand why some of the posters here say that you should get a double since you will rarely if ever need the lower gears that a triple chainring provides.

But "rarely" is the kicker. If you are only going to have one bike why limit yourself? If there are only one or two roads you can't ride with a double chainring those are one or two rides you are going to miss. If you ever decide to go out of your local area to ride cyclists almost always head for the mountains for good riding-not as easy to do with a double.

We actually make a point of going out and looking for the hardest climbs we can find. Our bikes don't hold us back. We still have the same harder gears that a double chainring provides, we just have the bonus of lower gears too.

I've been riding hard since 1969. IMHO modern bikes shift so well that to say a double shifts better than a triple is to make a very fine distinction.

Don't limit yourself with your equipment. Get a triple.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*don't get the logic...*



MB1 said:


> I usually ride single speed or fixed gear 6 days a week and geared perhaps once a week. I know that a cyclist can be very happy with very few gears and completly understand why some of the posters here say that you should get a double since you will rarely if ever need the lower gears that a triple chainring provides.
> 
> But "rarely" is the kicker. If you are only going to have one bike why limit yourself? If there are only one or two roads you can't ride with a double chainring those are one or two rides you are going to miss. If you ever decide to go out of your local area to ride cyclists almost always head for the mountains for good riding-not as easy to do with a double.
> 
> ...


road biking/racing is about going fast...which means producing the maximum power:weight ratio you can. which means having the lightest bike and strongest legs possible for your situation. which means dumping the triple, riding and strengthening your body with a double...pretty soon, we're all climbing with a 53 and wondering when we use the 39 anymore....just takes time to climb those two or three hills you once thought you never could without a triple...


----------



## Christoff (Jun 14, 2005)

But what about your knees?



I have a triple and I find myself using it quite a bit, especially for those long hills when I'm tired...


What's the advantage to a double? Weight?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Yes.*



bahueh: [B said:


> don't get the logic...[/B]QUOTE]
> 
> Completely and utterly agree.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

bahueh said:


> road biking/racing is about going fast...


 You have really limited yourself there. Some of us ride for enjoyment, transportation, fitness, sightseeing, endurance, etc. 

I have done lots of rides with some very good racers (including two RAAM finishers, one who won) and none of them looked down upon me because I was on a triple. 

I currently ride a double, but it does limit how far into the mountains I can go. Usually I need to headback down after going about 5 miles up a canyon. With the triple, there were lower gears to use and I could continue.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

bahueh said:


> which means having the lightest bike


The weight difference between a double and a triple look negliable to me.
For Ultegra it comes to about a 4 ounce difference.


----------



## vol245 (Jan 20, 2002)

bahueh said:


> road biking/racing is about going fast...which means producing the maximum power:weight ratio you can. which means having the lightest bike and strongest legs possible for your situation. which means dumping the triple, riding and strengthening your body with a double...pretty soon, we're all climbing with a 53 and wondering when we use the 39 anymore....just takes time to climb those two or three hills you once thought you never could without a triple...


Not everyone is 30 years old.

Also, I got a triple because I live in the flats and when I do decide to go to a hilly area I can do it and not suffer too much. I can't really train on hills since there aren't any around here that have a tough, sustained grade. I suffer enough with the triple when I go to the hills.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Might be for you, isn't for me.*



bahueh said:


> road biking/racing is about going fast....


Riding a bicycle is about whatever you want it to be. Transportation, fitness, racing, touring...the list is as long as the number of people that ride.

Having a triple allows me to ride in places that I couldn't ride with a double. Riding is faster than walking, however I will admit that someone could hop off their bike and start running when it gets too steep for a double chainring and would likely be able to run faster than I can pedal up those steep climbs.

I would rather ride.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Yeah*



MB1 said:


> will admit that someone could hop off their bike and start running when it gets too steep for a double chainring and would likely be able to run faster than I can pedal up those steep climbs.


You mean like all those fans in the Tour de France?


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*those riders are using at least a 39...*



Kerry Irons said:


> You mean like all those fans in the Tour de France?



and still blowing by all the drunks on course...good times. I think I read somewhere that Basso used a 51 for some of those hills..i doubt if he was the only one. 
climbing animals...all of them.


----------



## carioca (May 27, 2005)

To throw fuel in the fire... you could also get a compact crank, which is a double with smaller rings (usually 34/50 instead of the regular 39/52). Compacts are great for people who rarely use large ring up front with the smaller cogs in the back, and who would like a bit lower gearing to climb hills without resorting to a triple. That was my case. When I am on the large (52 tooth) ring on my regular crank I never use the smaller, 12, 13 and, sometimes, 14 cog in the rear. I just don't ride that fast. Also when I climg the few hills I have nearby I find out that my 24 tooth cog in the back is not low enough with the 39 front ring. So the compact, with a 34 ring will provide lower gearing, helping me climb. It's all a matter of taste. I prefer compacts, and I use one on my road bike.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bahueh said:


> road biking/racing is about going fast...which means producing the maximum power:weight ratio you can. which means having the lightest bike and strongest legs possible for your situation. which means dumping the triple, riding and strengthening your body with a double...pretty soon, we're all climbing with a 53 and wondering when we use the 39 anymore....just takes time to climb those two or three hills you once thought you never could without a triple...


Almost everything here is not correct. Racing is about going fast, but as an earlier poster pointed out, riding is about whatever the rider wants it to be. Going as fast as possible is not necessarily about having the highest power to weight ratio. That's only true for steep climbs. As the grade flattens, power to frontal area (or more precisely C_d A) is what controls speed. Bike weight matters on steep climbs but the maximum effect is the ratio of the change in weight to the total bike-rider weight. So a 140 lb rider on a 16 lb bike with an additional 4 lbs of clothes, shoes, water, and equipment will see at most a 1% improvement from dropping 2 lbs (which is a lot for the conditions stated). Strong legs have no relevance to endurance cycling nor does overall body strength. Professional cyclists show no difference in strength from the weight matched general population. As to only using a 53 chainring, well, I just saw the fittest riders in the world climbing in their 39's so I don't know what you're talking about here.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*well, obviously..*



asgelle said:


> Almost everything here is not correct. Racing is about going fast, but as an earlier poster pointed out, riding is about whatever the rider wants it to be. Going as fast as possible is not necessarily about having the highest power to weight ratio. That's only true for steep climbs. As the grade flattens, power to frontal area (or more precisely C_d A) is what controls speed. Bike weight matters on steep climbs but the maximum effect is the ratio of the change in weight to the total bike-rider weight. So a 140 lb rider on a 16 lb bike with an additional 4 lbs of clothes, shoes, water, and equipment will see at most a 1% improvement from dropping 2 lbs (which is a lot for the conditions stated). Strong legs have no relevance to endurance cycling nor does overall body strength. Professional cyclists show no difference in strength from the weight matched general population. As to only using a 53 chainring, well, I just saw the fittest riders in the world climbing in their 39's so I don't know what you're talking about here.


since you were watching them, you know. Me, I prefer to actually go ride, not watch. 
the post is about chainrings and climbing...my "advice" is simply to get stronger on the bike by practice and riding, not giving yourself an easy way out with a "granny gear". the body will adapt and strengthen with hard work...which will in turn help you lose weight and inevitable feel better about accomplishing those climbs in larger gears. Yes, YOU"RE RIGHT, riding style is a personal preference. who am I to argue with YOU?


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*I was very thankful for my triple this past weekend*

I don't use the granny much but this weekend on a long ride full of hills I used it several times. I was riding with some guys who only had doubles and they struggled on the hills and as a result they almost didn't finish the ride.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*did you count the teeth?*



asgelle said:


> Almost everything here is not correct. Racing is about going fast, but as an earlier poster pointed out, riding is about whatever the rider wants it to be. Going as fast as possible is not necessarily about having the highest power to weight ratio. That's only true for steep climbs. As the grade flattens, power to frontal area (or more precisely C_d A) is what controls speed. Bike weight matters on steep climbs but the maximum effect is the ratio of the change in weight to the total bike-rider weight. So a 140 lb rider on a 16 lb bike with an additional 4 lbs of clothes, shoes, water, and equipment will see at most a 1% improvement from dropping 2 lbs (which is a lot for the conditions stated). Strong legs have no relevance to endurance cycling nor does overall body strength. Professional cyclists show no difference in strength from the weight matched general population. As to only using a 53 chainring, well, I just saw the fittest riders in the world climbing in their 39's so I don't know what you're talking about here.


my point being...could have been a 42 ring they were using. all depends on the motor.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bahueh said:


> my point being...could have been a 42 ring they were using. all depends on the motor.


Not until you mentioned it, but plenty of pictures here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/05index.php
knock yourself out. One clear one at: http://www.bsn.com/cycling/WheelAerodynamics.html All appear to be 39's.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*oh, I forgot..*



asgelle said:


> Not until you mentioned it, but plenty of pictures here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/05index.php
> knock yourself out. One clear one at: http://www.bsn.com/cycling/WheelAerodynamics.html All appear to be 39's.



everything on the internet is accurate. listen, I don't mean to be a pr&*k or anything and didn't really want to start any sort of banter session. in many years of riding a bike however, I've seen almost no reason to own a small ring. i realize not everyone is my age or ability, but I simply encourage people to get themselves stronger (and healthier) by using the standard setups...hell, I can hardly understand the new 10 speed craze..as I usually only wear out about 4/9 rear cogs. who really needs 27 gears on a triple?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bahueh said:


> everything on the internet is accurate.


You're right, the men in the black helicopters used their power ray to force the Tour race photographers to digitally alter their race pictures to make all the 42 tooth inner rings look like 39's as part of a plot for world domination.

But let's look at the true implications of what you say. Using only the big chainring limits a rider to a 53x21 gear (it makes no sense to use a wider spaced cassette and then only use the big ring). That 53x21 @60 rpm gives a speed of 11.8 mph. Taking that as the lowest speed for the rider, that rider would have to exceed 270W to climb a 6% grade. That's equivalent to never riding slower than 26 mph on the flat. Now honestly, are you saying that every rider has the ability to ride that fast for miles on end without ever slowing down? I know results of time trials that are full of riders who never go that fast, and that's the group that has self-selected to race. So either you're ability is well above average, you ride in an area without extended climbs, or you're grinding up hills at a slow cadence. The first is an accident of birth, the second an accident of geography, and the third poor practice that shouldn't be recommended to beginners.


----------



## coldplay (Jul 25, 2004)

*How much faster is a double vs. a triple????*

I'm fairly new to road riding (2 years now), and I've ridden solo a lot, but also with my local bike club. I don't "race", but there are numerous riders that I ride with in the club that do. I've been riding a Trek 1000 with a triple this whole time, and can't see how I'm much slower than even the top riders in the club. I can't sustain the speed that they do (conditioning) as long as they can, but they're not blowing me away on rollers and downhills because they have a double and I have a triple. I know that they could drop me in a second if they wanted to, but IMO that has much more to do with their fitness level than it does with me riding a triple.
I can't imagine needing to go much faster (50mph+) on some of the crazy downhills that we have here. And although I rarely use my triple, I'd rather have it if I'm getting crushed on a climb. Who knows, maybe I'm too new to the sport, but I just don't see that much of a difference for the average Joe!


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Uhmm.....*



bahueh said:


> who really needs 27 gears on a triple?



With a triple you don't use 27 different gear ratios. To prevent crosschaining you only have use of 14-15 of those 27. I am sure you know this bahueh but I am pointing this out to some new guys who may not know. A triple with 9 speed does not give you 27 gears that you can actually use without breaking something.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*They are not faster*



coldplay said:


> I'm fairly new to road riding (2 years now), and I've ridden solo a lot, but also with my local bike club. I don't "race", but there are numerous riders that I ride with in the club that do. I've been riding a Trek 1000 with a triple this whole time, and can't see how I'm much slower than even the top riders in the club. I can't sustain the speed that they do (conditioning) as long as they can, but they're not blowing me away on rollers and downhills because they have a double and I have a triple. I know that they could drop me in a second if they wanted to, but IMO that has much more to do with their fitness level than it does with me riding a triple.
> I can't imagine needing to go much faster (50mph+) on some of the crazy downhills that we have here. And although I rarely use my triple, I'd rather have it if I'm getting crushed on a climb. Who knows, maybe I'm too new to the sport, but I just don't see that much of a difference for the average Joe!


Most bikes whether they are double or triple come equipped with a large chainring with 53 teeth and the smallest cog on the cassette at 12. So, no a double is not necessarily faster, unless they have different ratios.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*smallring..*



asgelle said:


> You're right, the men in the black helicopters used their power ray to force the Tour race photographers to digitally alter their race pictures to make all the 42 tooth inner rings look like 39's as part of a plot for world domination.
> 
> But let's look at the true implications of what you say. Using only the big chainring limits a rider to a 53x21 gear (it makes no sense to use a wider spaced cassette and then only use the big ring). That 53x21 @60 rpm gives a speed of 11.8 mph. Taking that as the lowest speed for the rider, that rider would have to exceed 270W to climb a 6% grade. That's equivalent to never riding slower than 26 mph on the flat. Now honestly, are you saying that every rider has the ability to ride that fast for miles on end without ever slowing down? I know results of time trials that are full of riders who never go that fast, and that's the group that has self-selected to race. So either you're ability is well above average, you ride in an area without extended climbs, or you're grinding up hills at a slow cadence. The first is an accident of birth, the second an accident of geography, and the third poor practice that shouldn't be recommended to beginners.


i meant smaller than a 39...thank you for the math lesson however. maybe i'm a freak of nature, who knows. I simply know, after a few years of riding in quite steep, hill strewn areas, that I can "grind" up hills often using a 53/21 combination at a descent cadence. Can I sustain that forever? NO. that's what the 39 is for. I'm a 152lbs on a 16.5 lb bike who's been racing for awhile and enjoys climbing. Did I start out being able to do this?
no way. I earned it through a LOT of hard work and no, not every rider has that ability (typified by the one's I usually pass along the way). did i start out with a front chain ring smaller than a 39? no. my body adjusted, I got stronger, and I'm simply pointing out that the fact that your typical, overweight American should work a little harder to achieve physical results and not spend more money on a front triple to help themselves out of a little hard work. 

power ray?


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*i'm with you.*



dagger said:


> With a triple you don't use 27 different gear ratios. To prevent crosschaining you only have use of 14-15 of those 27. I am sure you know this bahueh but I am pointing this out to some new guys who may not know. A triple with 9 speed does not give you 27 gears that you can actually use without breaking something.



I do know that all gear combinations are not possible with a triple unless you severely want to compromise cogs, chains, and derailleurs...I was being obtuse, my apologies.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bahueh said:


> ... and I'm simply pointing out that the fact that your typical, overweight American should work a little harder to achieve physical results and not spend more money on a front triple to help themselves out of a little hard work.


Work has almost nothing to do with this. Power does, and power to ride at a given speed is independent of the gear ratio chosen (for all intents and purposes). So if you're riding in your 53 whatever and I'm in my 30x23 and we're going the same speed, we're producing the same power. If we arrive at the top of the hill at the same time, we did the same amount of work. The only difference is you pressed on the pedals with more force turning them slowly, while I used less force turning them faster. It's easily possible to go slower, at less power, and do less work grinding away in a big gear than spining easily in a small gear as with a triple.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*don't forget about spokes*



bahueh said:


> I do know that all gear combinations are not possible with a triple unless you severely want to compromise cogs, chains, and derailleurs...I was being obtuse, my apologies.


I have broken spokes by grinding up hills in my big ring crossed over to the 19 cog. It was after the 3rd occurence before I figured out what I was doing wrong.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Torque misapplied*



TurboTurtle said:


> Why would a 53/19 cross break spokes??? - TF


On a triple the result of the width between the 53 and 19 was too much application of a torque that wasn't in line with the hub. Being the the 53 was to far to the right and the 19 was too far to the left. Make sense? It was pulling the hub out of line. The flexing of the hub was causing the spoke to shift at its connection to the hub.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

dagger said:


> I have broken spokes by grinding up hills in my big ring crossed over to the 19 cog. It was after the 3rd occurence before I figured out what I was doing wrong.


Why would a 53/19 cross break spokes??? - TF


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Maybe....Maybe not*



asgelle said:


> So if you're riding in your 53 whatever and I'm in my 30x23 and we're going the same speed, we're producing the same power. If we arrive at the top of the hill at the same time, we did the same amount of work. .


Work(or applied power)= (force multiplied by distance). So I guess your presuming that both riders are of equal weight.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

dagger said:


> Work(or applied power)= (force multiplied by distance). So I guess your presuming that both riders are of equal weight.


O.K. fine, usual disclaimers equal bikes, riders, equipment, etc. The point is of all the myriad factors that control how much power is required to ride at a certain speed or how much work is done covering a route, gear ratio is so low down the list of contributing factors as to be insignificant.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*I wonder..*



asgelle said:


> O.K. fine, usual disclaimers equal bikes, riders, equipment, etc. The point is of all the myriad factors that control how much power is required to ride at a certain speed or how much work is done covering a route, gear ratio is so low down the list of contributing factors as to be insignificant.


if Ben S knew what he was starting...
again, there Asgelle, you sort of overanalyzed my point. I'm encouragin a new rider to buy equipment that will inevitably make them a stronger rider. 
i'm guessing you're into engineering or physics...i'm a biostatistician buy you don't see me throughing in covariates for multiple logistic regression to explain the statistically signficant varibles for multiple chainring outcomes...
with that being said (for whatever reason)...it seems like you have to be correct. so, yes, we all yield. you are correct.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

dagger said:


> On a triple the result of the width between the 53 and 19 was too much application of a torque that wasn't in line with the hub. Being the the 53 was to far to the right and the 19 was too far to the left. Make sense? It was pulling the hub out of line. The flexing of the hub was causing the spoke to shift at its connection to the hub.


"Make sense?" I don't think so. It seems the wheel/spokes take a lot more side force at the tire than can be applied within about 3-4" of the axle. But??... TF


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*ouch...*



dagger said:


> On a triple the result of the width between the 53 and 19 was too much application of a torque that wasn't in line with the hub. Being the the 53 was to far to the right and the 19 was too far to the left. Make sense? It was pulling the hub out of line. The flexing of the hub was causing the spoke to shift at its connection to the hub.


another reasons not to use a triple!!!!!


----------



## Minimalist (Apr 20, 2005)

bahueh said:


> ... but I simply encourage people to get themselves stronger (and healthier) by using the standard setups...


I have a triple and use it to build up strength.  It's not the set up that makes you stronger. 

I like to have a tight spacing in my cassette so I have a 12/23. There are some rides I couldn't have done with a 53/39 in the past which I probably could do now, but for climbs like Hogpen or Brasstown Bald I still need the triple. Granted, I probably could use a compact with a 12/27 and get the same gearing but like I said I like the tight spacing. It really doesn't matter what equipment you have. It matters what you make out of it.


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm surprised at how useful a triple is for me. I've ridden fixed on the road & track, plenty of 2 x 5 bikes, rode a 2 x 7 for years. Bought a bike recently based entirely on frame geometry, which happened to come with 3 x 10 (seemed quite excessive!). I can certainly ride anything around here with just the 42/52 combination. But I'm on that inside chainring often and on the middle cogs. Being able to click up and down through 15 -16 -17 etc has turned out to be very nice at maintaining a consistent cadence. I'm enjoying it. I find I'm not using the 2 largest cogs much at all on any chain ring. 

Another aspect: I'm in my 50s and I want my knees to last a long time. The triple is very nice on warmup!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*The case for triples.*

As an old fogey used to handling any terrain with 52/42 and 13-23 (or 13-26 on my commuter), and refusing to wimp out on a triple, I agree with bahueh, that suffering up hills builds strength and character, one of the most valuable things cycling has to offer.

However, 42-23 or 42-26 are only 2 gears. If you could use another, too bad. Having a 30, you could use all your cogs in back down to the 17, all of them now low enough for serious ascending, but fine tunable for subtle variations in grade, or how you're feeling that day. Multiple options in climbing gears is what few double chainring aficionados appreciate. Our options are severely limited. We get bogged down and have to start grinding away in painfully low cadences way too early. With a triple, you can "stay on top of the gear" much more of the time, even as you ascend at the same speed and do the same work.


----------



## Taskmaxter (Apr 11, 2004)

*Just depends on your needs...*

My first Roubaix has a triple. I found I dropped down into the little ring a lot when getting into the hills. It worked great for me since it allowed me to spin the hills as needed. After I trashed my Roubaix's frame, I bought a new one but this time with a Double (since I already had all of the original gear off of the broken bike to build a backup). Since buying the double, my riding strategy or riding thought process has really changed. On my old triple I would almost always ride in the 42 ring and rarely go up to the 53 ring. Now, I'm almost always in the 53 ring on the double. For me, riding the double has made me a stronger rider since I cannot bail out into the little ring like I always used to - but again, each is own. The triple has many advantages and I'm sure there will be a hill at some point where I will think "man, I sure wish I had that triple now!".


----------



## mandovoodoo (Aug 27, 2005)

Goes to show that it isn't what you've got, but how you use it. If you want to be strong, then one can ride higher gears on a triple or double, either one. 

Personally, I'm enjoying my triple greatly. I've only ever had triples on tandems before. We rode a hilly loop today. Moderate length climbs with grades up to really too $%^#* steep to ride a bike up comfortably. But mostly undulating climbs, moderate. I never hit my lowest gear, but I popped back and forth in the middle of the cog from the little chainring constantly. Made climbing much more efficient. Probably spent equal time on each of the chainrings. Lumpy almost level on the middle ring, smooth level to slight downhill on the big ring. Having lots of gears turns out to be very useful. Even for someone who once spent LOTS of time with fixed gear on the road. 

And what a day. Got onto one of my favorite roads, up on a ridge overlooking the Smoky Mountains. Could see Clingman's Dome and Mt. LeConte in the distance. Beautiful weather. Lots of horses & cows & fast turns.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

mandovoodoo said:


> Goes to show that it isn't what you've got, but how you use it. If you want to be strong, then one can ride higher gears on a triple or double, either one.
> 
> Personally, I'm enjoying my triple greatly. I've only ever had triples on tandems before. We rode a hilly loop today. Moderate length climbs with grades up to really too $%^#* steep to ride a bike up comfortably. But mostly undulating climbs, moderate. I never hit my lowest gear, but I popped back and forth in the middle of the cog from the little chainring constantly. Made climbing much more efficient. Probably spent equal time on each of the chainrings. Lumpy almost level on the middle ring, smooth level to slight downhill on the big ring. Having lots of gears turns out to be very useful. Even for someone who once spent LOTS of time with fixed gear on the road.
> 
> And what a day. Got onto one of my favorite roads, up on a ridge overlooking the Smoky Mountains. Could see Clingman's Dome and Mt. LeConte in the distance. Beautiful weather. Lots of horses & cows & fast turns.


 Congratulations on figuring out that there is more to cycling than going as fast as you can. The big advantage of the triple is that you don't have to ride hard all the time. You can downshift and enjoy the climbs and not worry about pain.


----------

