# 3 chain rings or 2?



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

OK, I'm plunging in. I'm going for an entry level about $600-700. Should I go for the 3 chain ring or 2 with a compact 34t/50t? I'm looking to to about 80mi/week in some short but steep hills around a 1/4mi distance. It will likely be a Fuji roubaix with a carbon fork and compact. I'm looking to get stronger in the legs so should I just stick with the compact? I test drove a Trek 1.2 with a triple and noticed I shifted alot.
Also the Fuji roubaix shifters are STI but with little thumb shifters also instead of the long shifter next to the brake. Don't know the name of the shifters. Do the thumb shifters hold up?
Really looking for a good frame bike that I can always up grade things. Thanks.
Mark


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Gear range is about the same between a typical triple 52/42/30 with a 12-25 vs. 50/34 & 11-28 compact. With a triple you have more gear choices at a cost of slightly more weight - I don't think either choice will make you stronger. 

Thumb shifters? They work on mountain bikes, so they probably will hold up, but on a Fuji Roubaix? Are you sure about that?


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

wipeout said:


> Thumb shifters? They work on mountain bikes, so they probably will hold up, but on a Fuji Roubaix? Are you sure about that?


He's not talking about MTB-style thumb shifters, he's talking about the thumb levers on Shimano Sora integrated shift/brake levers.

Asad


----------



## bseracka (Jun 25, 2009)

Compact- lighter (slightly) and much easier to keep adjusted


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

I recommend triples for beginners who need low gearing (steep hills). I ride both and really have nothing against compact doubles, it's just that I think for a beginner in the hills it's just a better option. 

You can really get away with far, far less front shifting with the triple because the middle ring is just so much more versitile than anything the compact double has to offer. Many/most people with triples can virtually camp out on the middle ring and just shift the rear - which makes the shifting overall much smoother and simpler. Then, the simple strategy is to look at the small ring when those hills come up, and the large ring on the downside of the hills.... then back to the middle ring for 80% of the riding. Shifting isn't rocket science, but I think beginners especially benefit from this simplicity.

Compact doubles involve a lot more "double shifting" (shift the front then shift the rear at least two times to reduce the "jump" in gearing), a lot more front shifting and a lot more cross-chaining (which isn't horrible, but isn't optimal). It's just the nature of the beast - the triple overcomes that to a great extent.

Compact doubles need much wider spaced cassettes to approach the low gearing of a triple. Not a huge big deal, but again, the potential for a tighter cluster with a triple makes the drive train better.

Given any cassette size (whether that be a 25t or 28t big sprocket), the triple will be about "2 gears" lower in gearing.

The triple, contrary to urban legend, is perfectly easy to adjust as any double, and has much smaller jumps between the rings making front shifting smoother, not rougher.

I've ridden both and am perfectly happy with my new compact double after having ridden a triple for years. don't have anything against either - but for a beginner on hills, the triple really has some advantages that the compact double just can't meet.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Camilo,
Great response! Did not think about camping out in the middle ring for some much time. The middle 42t would be my smaller chain ring presently. Today I noticed, that I was in the 42t more than the 52t. I used the 52t for the down hills and they are not super long so I'm quickly back to 42t.
The thumbs shifter is not the MTB, but on the inside area of the hoods.
I must be getting stronger because my 22 miler 1 month ago took 1:30:00 on the 7 speed and 42t/52t, then 1:20:00 on the Bottechia with compact and 10 speed, and today 1:19:00 on the Nishiki. So much for the carbon being faster, for me any ways.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

If you're not concerned about other people's perception then I'd go with a triple all day every day over a compact. Have no idea where the misconception of a triple is hard to keep adjusted came from. Also Camilo is spot on about camping out in the middle ring, which keeps shifting down on the front to begin with.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

triples never shift well
if you need granny gears go compact
I'm 48 and a Clydesdale running 53/39 Double and a 12/27 cassette on my roadie


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> triples never shift well
> if you need granny gears go compact
> I'm 48 and a Clydesdale running 53/39 Double and a 12/27 cassette on my roadie


You are a stone stud and we should all be riding your gears so we're not wimps.

But you're dead wrong about triple shifting - they always shift well unless you don't know how to tune them.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ohvrolla said:


> Have no idea where the misconception of a triple is hard to keep adjusted came from.


Some of it comes from misleading marketing BS, like this:

_"First 11-32 cassette on the road. You like to climb long mountain passes, or your local hill, but don’t want clumsy triple cranks on your bike? With the first 11-32 cassette for the road, and our new...compact crankset..."_


----------



## scirocco (Dec 7, 2010)

It must depend on the hills. I spent a few weeks riding in the French mountains last month and I swear I only ever used two gears the whole time, the 34-28 and the 50-11.  10-speed was wasted on me let alone a triple.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Guess it's a mixed answer. Three weeks in the French Alps! What a life time experience. You weren't in the Tour de France were you? I wonder what those guy use? Compacts or triples?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

osteomark said:


> I wonder what those guy use? Compacts or triples?


Neither. The standard gearing is the 53-39 standard double with a 11-23 cassette. In the mountains, they put on an 11-25 cassette (some choose an 11-27 for an exceptionally difficult climb). Keep in mind that these guys are very, very different from you and me.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Different?! They don't even sound human with those gearings.LOL
I suprised I'm not in training wheels still. Their gears are harder than mine and I'm on basically flat land to them. Just amazing how fit they are. I've heard the ideal weight for a TdFer is double your height in inches and change that # to pounds. Basically @ 5'9" that's 138# which is 24# under perfect body weight. I'm considered overweight @ 183#, and I'd like to loses #20 more. People say I'd look like a skeleton. Cann't imagine 138#. So much for Body Mass Index charts!


----------



## Zombie John (Jul 25, 2011)

I recently just got my first road bike and it came with the SRAM Apex stuff -- 2 chainrings, 50/34. I like it a lot. I mainly "camp" in the tallest chainring. With the 11-32 cassette, it's geared really low without having the granny chain ring.

*shrugs* I love it but I don't have much to compare it to except the mtb I used to have.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> triples never shift well


Mine always shift very well. We have 7 bikes with triples and two with doubles. The triples shift great. There is nothing inherent in a triple that would make it shift worse.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

looigi,
I think the triple will be fine.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

wim said:


> Some of it comes from misleading marketing BS, like this:
> 
> _"First 11-32 cassette on the road. You like to climb long mountain passes, or your local hill, but don’t want clumsy triple cranks on your bike? With the first 11-32 cassette for the road, and our new...compact crankset..."_


Yep, marketing and popular opinion. It's funny too, with the influx of relaxed geometry I can ride around faking the funk on a all carbon whip with low spoke count wheels and a head tube so tall it's on the verge of riding a hybrid, but good lord the shame of having a triple on it.


----------



## doinitrt (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm new to riding myself and found that I'm personally more drawn to a triple. I like the psychological benefit of knowing I have a few more gears to get up the hills if needed.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

doinitrt,
I like the idea that the 30t is there when I need it also. Even if I only use it 5-10% of the ride. I like the 52t largest chain ring to pedal more down hill without spinning out. I'm maxing out at 36mph pedalling down hill with the 52t/14t on my 7 speed. So going 50t/12 maybe the same thing, but the 52t/12t may give me a few more downhill mph. Not sure. Don't know how to figure out front/back tooth ratios.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ohvrolla said:


> It's funny too, with the influx of relaxed geometry I can ride around faking the funk on a all carbon whip with low spoke count wheels and a head tube so tall it's on the verge of riding a hybrid, but good lord the shame of having a triple on it.


Yes. And when you think about the exceedingly small percentage of full-on race-bike owners actually racing a bike in sanctioned races, you could conclude that there's something slightly bizarre about the whole cycling scene. Better not think about it.


----------



## JTrider (Jun 27, 2011)

Does anyone know why you rarely see triples at LBS's? I live in Atlanta and was shopping for my new bike for the last few months before buying and while searching, never saw a triple at any of the LBS's here.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

JTrider said:


> Does anyone know why you rarely see triples at LBS's?


As implied in several previous posts, the triple is seriously out of fashion right now with consumers not only looking for function, but also looking to make a statement. "High-end" and "triple" doesn't compute any longer in popular opinion, and you gotta stock what you can sell. But be that as it may, I think there are plenty of triples if you look at certain kinds of bikes or at certain price points of race-type bikes.


----------



## Love Commander (Aug 20, 2009)

Doubles look way cooler.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

A triple has 52/42/30 front rings. Most folks rarely, if ever, use the 30. The 42 is a much bigger ring than the conventional 53/39. It's not great for climbing. A 50/34 compact is a great alternative to a triple or a conventional system. Put a 12-27 or 12-29 on it and you'll have all the climbing gear you need.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

wim said:


> Yes. And when you think about the exceedingly small percentage of full-on race-bike owners actually racing a bike in sanctioned races, you could conclude that there's something slightly bizarre about the whole cycling scene. Better not think about it.


I'm guessing that's a dig, but in fact you're proving my point. It's more the image of being a racing bike, as opposed to actually being fit like a racing bike. A bike with a triple crankset and Sora shifters would be fine for a lot of people riding along on the hoods, but how often do you see that recommendation on here? Normally you hear stuff like triples don't shift well and Sora needs constant adjustment, both of which are total BS. IMO someone shouldn't worry about what someone else thinks if it fits their needs, otherwise you're allowing popular opinion to dictate your needs.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ohvrolla said:


> I'm guessing that's a dig, .


No, not a dig, sorry if it came across that way. I completely agree with your point of view.


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

i have both, and i kinda concur with consensus

compact double no contest. with the triple its kinda fun to use grandma you can really haul a55 with that small gear on big hills. but not only is the compact configuration good for hills, i agree that there's probably less shifting overall. 

i'm keeping and upgrading the triple to ultegra on my spesh, mostly cause i got a good deal on the parts, and like i say, that granny is fun to rock on big hills lol. eventually, though, it will all probably go for a double compact. overall compact is definitely the way to go imo


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

wim said:


> No, not a dig, sorry if it came across that way. I completely agree with your point of view.


No biggie, and IMO if someone is out there riding then good. I fall into the "it is what it is" line of thinking. A compact double didn't transform a rider into a hill climbing beast, but if aesthetics plays on their minds so be it if they're riding.

Easyridernyc I agree on it being fun to spin. I've found myself going a hair faster sometimes when a hill gets a little tougher just by concentrating on pushing the high cadence. Seems I can up the cadence a little bit when I'm already doing 90-100.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

I think people riding high end, lightweight bikes made of the latest materials - no matter what the configuration, full racing, "relaxed", whatever - is not bizarre at all. It is just fun. Why should anyone ride a lesser bike just because they're not a racer? Now that's a bizarre idea as if only racers can enjoy good equipment. Current bikes with taller head tubes and longer wheel bases are just fitting the needs of non-racer enthusiasts who like good gear.

In fact, it used to be fairly common to be able to get top of the line light weight bikes with top components and frames, but in more relaxed configurations. 

It has nothing to do with what you could get by with (i.e. Sora vs. Dura Ace, aluminum vs. CF, etc.). It only has to do with what you enjoy and can afford. Doesn't matter if the high tech is put into a duffer's bike or Lance's. IT's still enjoyed.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

Camilo said:


> I think people riding high end, lightweight bikes made of the latest materials - no matter what the configuration, full racing, "relaxed", whatever - is not bizarre at all. It is just fun. Why should anyone ride a lesser bike just because they're not a racer? Now that's a bizarre idea as if only racers can enjoy good equipment. Current bikes with taller head tubes and longer wheel bases are just fitting the needs of non-racer enthusiasts who like good gear.
> 
> In fact, it used to be fairly common to be able to get top of the line light weight bikes with top components and frames, but in more relaxed configurations.
> 
> It has nothing to do with what you could get by with (i.e. Sora vs. Dura Ace, aluminum vs. CF, etc.). It only has to do with what you enjoy and can afford. Doesn't matter if the high tech is put into a duffer's bike or Lance's. IT's still enjoyed.


I get no more enjoyment shifting my 10 speed 105 as compared to shifting my 7 speed Sora. Upgrading a usable part does not magically make me want to ride more. I am bizarre in that I enjoy cycling and not looking at a bike as "the finer things in life" or as a status symbol. Pretty much why I feel the way I do about the triple versus compact argument. If someone is insecure about being seen on a triple then by all means join the other non climbing sheep and get a compact if it means more riding. My argument is about popular opinion. It has nothing to do with what you enjoy or can afford, it has to do with crap like triples don't shift good and Sora doesn't last. It has to do with someone upgrading to those lightweight low spoke count wheels and wondering why his average speed didn't miraculously go up or why he has to carry his bike home when a spoke breaks leaving the rim hitting frame.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Ahh, the triple vs. double debate!*

Put my vote down for double. But I'm an old fart. Back when I started, bikes weighed 22 pounds or more, and all had 52-42 up front and 13-28 in back, if you were a wimp. Racers all had 13-21s. Nobody ever had to dismount and walk his bike up a hill. They'd just pedal harder and get fitter.

So last week, on the occasion of my 68th birthday, I rode with a friend, about 40 years old. He'd been riding exclusively in the big ring on his carbon fiber Fuji, a 50. His little 34 was clean. Well, I adjusted his derailleur so it would shift right, and he was enamored with how he could now spin up the rises.

We got to the long climb out of Roslyn, and he hunkered down on his 34-27 I think, cranking 90 rpm, nice and easy. Well, I didn't have that nice gear. I had to stay on top of my 43-28, or fade into a 40 rpm struggle to stay with him. But I know how to turn the crank in circles, "spin," using the slow twitch aerobic muscles, the ones that don't die. So I said, "Sorry, I have to stay on top of this gear!" And pulled out front, cranking that 43-28 for all I was worth, no doubt well into anaerobic, but what the hell, no pain no gain! 

He slowed to about 6 mph in his little 34-27, and pretty much got stuck at that speed. Climbing kind of squelches the desire to accelerate. When I looked around at the top, I couldn't even see him. I'd slowed to about 10 mph. Any less than that and I wouldn't have been able to "stay on top of the gear," viz. take advantage of the aerobic slow twitch muscles.

But, to each his own. I'll just keep going with what I've trained on for the last 40 years, even riding the 24 pound touring bike with 28C tires, fenders and rack, I dropped my friend on. A lighter frame will only make it easier.

Respondents here are saying they can live in the middle ring of a triple, same 42 (or 43 or 44) many have found entirely satisfactory all along. On a sub 20 pound bike, all you'd need in back would be just like the racers, anywhere from a 23 to a 28. Practice your spin and just pedal.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Want to see indifferent? I should let you ride my 18.6 lb. Felt FA with a full Dura Ace 7803 triple group. Guys want to talk trash until they see that it's Dura Ace. I wanted to go with Ultegra but only Dura Ace offers the 44t chainring. It was a perfect match for me. Marketing does dictate what a large percentage of cyclists ride. I liked the comment about riding a carbon bike with a tall top tube that is almost the height of a hybrid. This is so true. However, many of these riders are the people that think it's blasphemous not to dump your stem to the top of the headtube. I love my triples. I have one bike with a standard Dura Ace double that was initially a compact double. I hated the compact. The top end sucked. However, many love them. Just my preference but my triple group shifts as well as any double and if I need a gear, the triple will have it. Cool factor? Double versus triple? That's for you to decide. The idea that doubles are better than triples is asinine. Each has it's advantages, and the only way a double can excel over a triple is if you are a racer....... and even that is minimal. The average rider just wants to look like a racer even if he/she isn't one. Most of the people here have already spoken on it. It's a matter of preference.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

Fredrico I'm only 38 and remember those old corncobs! Interesting comment about your friend doing 6 mph in the 34-27. 30-25 is the lowest I can go, but just about never use it. Around 10-11 mph is what I'll climb the longer hills around my area with the 30-21. Could be done in the 39-25, but I prefer the higer cadence. You bring up a valid point about keeping with what you've been doing for the last 40 years. My first road bike was 22 or so years ago, and if I had been riding a 39-25 up a climb at 10 mph that would have been spinning to me back then. It isn't like a cadence of 80 is mashing when climbing either. After a 18 year hiatus from cycling I got back into it and jumped on the high cadence bandwagon though. 

I do remember a couple weeks ago riding during the middle of a 95 degree day after not eating in quite a while and needed every bit of the 30-25 just to make it home. That's my fault though, but hey that's why they call it a bail out gear and I needed bailing out.

The one thing that I think has some weight and hasn't been mentioned is Q factor. If a rider is sensitive to the wider Q factor of a triple then that is a viable argument for going with a compact.


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

my steel commuter has triple. i have a 52-42-30 (13-25 back) and i rarely use the 30, but in days that it is really windy or days after playing soccer hauling a heavy bag....30 helps me spin back home.

my carbon bike has a double, 53-39 (12-27), the gearing is fine except on the steepest hill climb or the where I have to stand up (I hate standing up) or the windiest day (makes me wish I had the 30 there to spin)

so it depends on your ride terrain/wind and fitness. triple for versatility. double for easy rides.


----------



## BlueGrassBlazer (Aug 4, 2009)

My old Cannondale Cad3 had a 52-42-30 triple with 11-24 in the back. I never ever used the big ring and pretty much lived in the 42 ring. I'd use the 30 early in the season as a bail out or to make hills if I was bonking but the 42 ring was probably 90% of my riding. With that said, I went with a compact 50-34 with 11-28 in the back. Why buy a triple if I'll never use the big ring. The compact gives me 95% of the gear ranges I had with the triple...the difference being the very highest gear on the 52. But, I never used that gear anyway and I got one lower granny gear for early in the season.
One of the issues with my 11-28 rear is finding the right gear for my cadence. When out on a ride and really in a groove, I'll shift up only to find the resistance is a little more than I want and a shift down is too much spin. With the triple and narrower range on the back, I didn't find that as much...at least I didn't notice it. I still prefer the double, but the wider gearing is both an advantage and a disadvantage for me. 
When watching the TDF this year, one of the color commentators said that the riders used the 53/39 front and 11-21 in the back. 11-21 eliminates any wide gearing issues but I'll stick with my 11-28... :thumbsup:


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

My perhaps irrational opinion would be the "SRAM Apex" route: Compact + wide range cassette. Why?

1) A bit more simplicity in FD setup and number of parts. I always lean to this.
2) Compatibility with other compact cranks. Face it, we all like "upgrading", and there's not many cool triples out there anymore.
3) If you have leg strength concerns, then I doubt you would have a sense of concern of more exact gearing/jumps.

My own argument to get a triple on the other hand...
My reasonably athletic friend went climbing with me last year. Full of ambition, only to lose it. Biggest cog (maybe a 25) on the small ring of his triple. Even if he had a larger cassette, he needed that small ring apparently. No need to blaze through a ride if you can't finish it.


----------



## Hooksta (Jul 21, 2011)

I prefer doubles but where I live we mostly have "rollers." Nothing wrong with a triple in my book.


----------

