Double or triple?

[peanut]

its not about whether to have a double or triple chainset its about getting the gearing right for your strength, fitness and comfort ie the type of riding you do.
You can achieve all the gears a triple will offer with a double unless you are hauling a camping trailer up a mountain on an MTB .

I would suggest you start by looking at the gears you predominently use out on a typical ride and draw up various gear charts using Sheldons gear chart calculator.

For example if you wanted to achieve 35.5 inches you could either do it with a conventional double chainset with a 38t chainring and 27t rear sprocket or you could use a compact double chainset with 34t chainring and 25t rear sprocket and get the same gear ratio.

Frankly if you need anything more than a 34t chainring and a 27t sprocket you should be thinking about working harder to build up some leg strength and cardio vascular fitness or taking a different route

 

[MacB]

Peanut, not sure on that last bit, that only gives around the 33inch mark. If I wanted a double to meet all my current needs I'd say a 26/38 with a 9 speed cassette range of 11:28 would give you a range of 25.2 to 93.9 inches. Then, as you get stronger, you could replace the front rings with larger sizes to suit.

I'd say the upper end of the range is of least use to novice cyclists.

 

[Radius]

My roadie has a Tiagra triple, but I hardly ever come of the top chainring in normal use. On steep hills I go down to the middle, and stand up, or (at the very worst of times) sit down and push, but try to stay standing. You can't stand up on the lowest chainring and near lowest sprocket, cos you'll put too much power through the pedals and go nowhere, getting no resistance. I think I could manage fine with a double. But I suppose the security of the triple is a nice pampered feeling. Not too bothered, but if you're not very fit / used to hills maybe you want a triple for now.

 

[Tynan]

Ditchling aside I've never been off the big ring

 

[peanut]

Peanut, not sure on that last bit, that only gives around the 33inch mark. If I wanted a double to meet all my current needs I'd say a 26/38 with a 9 speed cassette range of 11:28 would give you a range of 25.2 to 93.9 inches. Then, as you get stronger, you could replace the front rings with larger sizes to suit.

I'd say the upper end of the range is of least use to novice cyclists.

My point was you are asking the wrong question ,

 

[yello]

The difficulty I have with advice like peanut's (and it's sound advice, I'm not knocking it) is that it is a little chicken-and-egg. The beginner is not going to know which gears they need. They won't know that until they've been riding a while. There's a better chance that a triple will give the beginner the gears they need, a better chance than a compact that is. Of course, they'll still have to decide on the configuration of the triple but at least it becomes less critical. There are other factors too.

As I said earlier, I replaced my triple chainset just last month but was considering a compact. I would have gone 50/34 13-26 but decided that my advancing years meant my knees might prefer a gentler option in years to come! So I played safe and stayed with a triple.

 

[ajb]

You can't stand up on the lowest chainring and near lowest sprocket, cos you'll put too much power through the pedals and go nowhere, getting no resistance.

That depends on the hill surely,
I ride a triple, 50,39,30 with a 12/25 cassette.
I regularly ride hills where I am in the 30/25 and stand up.

Alan.

 

[John the Monkey]

That depends on the hill surely,
I ride a triple, 50,39,30 with a 12/25 cassette.
I regularly ride hills where I am in the 30/25 and stand up.

Especially in Devon

Here in Cheshire, I find my lowest used gears are on the middle, and my most used are various combinations of the large (50T) ring. I've not used the small ring in ages, but then I've not been near Mow Cop for a while...

 

[peanut]

The difficulty I have with advice like peanut's (and it's sound advice, I'm not knocking it) is that it is a little chicken-and-egg. The beginner is not going to know which gears they need. They won't know that until they've been riding a while. There's a better chance that a triple will give the beginner the gears they need, a better chance than a compact that is. Of course, they'll still have to decide on the configuration of the triple but at least it becomes less critical. There are other factors too.

As I said earlier, I replaced my triple chainset just last month but was considering a compact. I would have gone 50/34 13-26 but decided that my advancing years meant my knees might prefer a gentler option in years to come! So I played safe and stayed with a triple.

I hear what you're saying yello but I frequently find novices find gearing systems confusing enough even to operate. Many haven't a clue what chain ring or sprocket they are in or which way to operate the levers to make it 'easier' to ride up a hill .
I think a triple is going to confuse many novices who will be forever fiddling with the gears to find a suitable ratio or worse still just leave it in the wrong ratio and struggle .
If a novice doesn't know what gearing they need for the riding they are doing i would suggest they just ride what they got for 2-3 months so they can find out

 

[jimboalee]

I think it might be worth mentioning again that a teenie-weenie chainring is possible on a specialist double. TA Cyclotourist for example.

The question is:- what do you want the bike to do?
Ride fast everywhere but have a small gear for the really steep hills. Then a 52/42/30 triple is your baby.
Ride at a reasonable pace and get up any hill you meet? An MTB triple.
Ride slower with some luggage and grovel up the mountains? Then a TA Cyclotourist 40/26 is your baby.
Ride like the wind and walk up hills steeper than 12%? A 52/43 is fitting.
Ride like the wind and walk up hills steeper than 14%? A 53/39 is fitting.

Note – I haven't mentioned Compacts. There used to be an 'Alpine' set, which was a 54/37 or even a 55/37. They were a 'double step' where there was a two sprocket move when the chainring was shifted. The 37 ring coupled with a 25 sprocket to make a 40" gear – which was exactly BANG ON for a 20lb bike. The 55 ring to a 13 sprocket gave 114" for the mountain descents ( In Merckx's days ) at 40+ mph. With a 13 x 25 Six block, you had nine ratios.
DON'T get a Compact. Consider an Alpine 55/37 with a 12 x 25 cassette.

 

[yello]

I do love your posts jimbo! They speak to me of a history of stuff I just have no idea about!

 

[Chris James]

I presume everyone's opinions are shaped by their experience as a function of their strength and their terrain.

I have had a single chain ring bike, a standard double, a 48/36 'compact' (when they were called touring chainsets!!) and a 'road' triple. I have also spent a lot of time cycling in two of the flattest counties in the country (Cheshire and Somerset) as well as one of the hilliest (Yorkshire).

FWIW, I find I rarely use the big ring around here, simply because the roads (or at least the routes I choose) are either steeply up or steeply down. When downhill I often get into an aero tuck as I find it actually quicker than pedalling. I spend A LOT of time in the small ring as I have a ten speed cassette and it is easier to run up and down that a bit rather than change at the front and know you will have to change back when the road goes up steeply (the lowest middle gear I am prepared to use is 42/21 which isn't low enough for me to climb hills all day).

When I go for a ride in (west and central) Cheshire I never, ever use the small ring. There's no need.

So it is difficult for anyone to make pronouncements about what gears someone needs as there are so many variables.

I would be happy to consider a compact on a race bike for around here. I would anticipate spending a lot of time in the small ring! However, when I had my compact I found it a pain for general riding as my general cruising gear (low 60s inches) was just about where I expected to have to shift front chain ring. So the slightest rise in the road involved all manner of shifting.

Whereas with my triple with a 42 tooth middle ring gives useable gears from 50 inches to 80 inches, all with a decent chain line.

So in contrast to some posters above, I think triples are actually easier for beginners and recreational riders. It really is a case of big ring for downhill, middle ring for general riding, small ring for hills.

As far as the comment about standing up on small gears, I agree, I never get out of my saddle in my bottom gear (30/25) as you will tend to get wheel spin. Very low gears are there to twiddle up the hill. If I want to fight my way up a steep hill I go up a couple of gears and honk in 30/21.

 

[John the Monkey]

Personally, I find the biggest problem with the compact is that the small ring becomes a bit superfluous for the sort of riding I do. It's there for starting off and getting up to speed, and then you roll along on the big ring more often than not. (My triple has 50/39 big and middle rings, similar to some compacts)

On my first bike I had a more traditional 52/42 double, and the middle ring on that bike seemed more useful to me.

 

[Greenbank]

Part of my justification for specifying a Compact on the latest bike is that I'm quite capable of generating a lot of torque having ridden fixed for several years. Not having a gear below 35" doesn't worry me if I can push a 67" gear up pretty much anything up to and including 15% climbs (White Down in the Surrey Hills at 18% beats me, as does the 17% climb out of Pont-Rhyd-Y-Groes let alone the 25% Devil's Staircase).

Being able to climb prolonged hills at 25rpm (8kph) has some benefits.

Before I had this leg strength I was quite happy with my triple (and still am).

 

[bonj2]

...
when I had my compact I found it a pain for general riding as my general cruising gear (low 60s inches) was just about where I expected to have to shift front chain ring. So the slightest rise in the road involved all manner of shifting.

Whereas with my triple with a 42 tooth middle ring gives useable gears from 50 inches to 80 inches, all with a decent chain line.

So in contrast to some posters above, I think triples are actually easier for beginners and recreational riders. It really is a case of big ring for downhill, middle ring for general riding, small ring for hills.

that pretty much exactly confirms my scepticism of compact chainsets tbh.

Athough I'm not sure why you confine the advantages to 'beginners and recreational riders', surely by that you mean 'everyone but racers'?

The only disadvantage of a triple is surely a few extra grams in weight, which is only important if you're in a race? And even then a top flight race. I'm sure a lot of bog standard sportive riders use triples...