Triple on a road bike - yay or nay

[Fab Foodie]

This is a personal view, IME the extra shifting complexity of a triple is a real downside as I have to think much more about chainring selection. The only triple which kinda works for me is a 26/36/48 but then I so rarely use the 26t chainring don't see much point.


I find I need to double shift on triple chainring swaps anyway. Maybe having bar-end shifters at my finger tips on bull horns or up until recently grip shifts on flat bars means that double shifting is double shifting be it a 1 or 10 gear change at the back. Not having used STIs or thumb shifters in a long time maybe that does limit your ability to double shift smoothly but I just don't know.

Of course it's a personal opinion... most are!

I find with a 52/42/30 and a 11 to 25 rear, medium cage mech the shifting is really easy peasy... but that's just my opinion... so there

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Really honestly seriously, do people really think about what gear they are in? I just go by feel, of my legs ansd lungs and heart, and sound of the chainset and mechs; if it is quiet on we go.

I've got sora on my tourer/road/utility bike and someone, riding something much more up market, once criticised the shifter for not having a numeric display on them. Do you really need an arrow and a number to know where you are, and what your options are, gear wise?

As most of my cycling in recent years has been on mtb's if I need to know what gear I'm in to that level of precision then something has prob gone wrong in which case I'll look at the cassette or the chainrings.

 

[jimboalee]

The gears you NEED.

1/ A gear which allows you to ride at the Maximum efficiency speed at YOUR natural cadence.

2/ A gear to ascend a 5% hill.

3/ A gear to get up a 10% hill.

4/ A gear to get up a 12% hill.

5/ A gear to get up a 14% hill.

6/ A gear to get up a 16% hill.

7/ A gear to get up a 20% hill.

Any others are a luxury.

Gear 1/ can be determined by assessing YOUR natural cadence, power output at that cadence and the Roadload curve of your bike.

The other gears can be determined two ways. I prefer the old method because the other method involves even more maths.

As you can see, you only NEED seven gears, which can be sorted on a single ring and cassette with seven sprockets, custom built to your results.
The cassette may have nine. That means you could have two gears which are higher than 1/ for favourable wind conditions and slight descents.

 

[MacB]

So a 40t ring and 12-34 cassette you reckon then Jim?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The gears you NEED

....

Any others are a luxury.

Great post. Don't the gears you need vary with the load you are carrying and to a lesser degree the strength of your legs?

 

[jimboalee]

So a 40t ring and 12-34 cassette you reckon then Jim?

Workable.

How heavy is the bike?

 

[MacB]

Workable.

How heavy is the bike?

Doesn't exist yet but would be 30lbs plus

 

[jimboalee]

Doesn't exist yet but would be 30lbs plus

For a 30lb er, I'd go for a 36 ring to a 11-34 Shimano XT cassette.

That has a 64" gear which would give me 82 cadence at 15.5 mph.
It would be in seventh position, which is where it's supposed to be on a 9 cassette.

 

[TheDoctor]

I'd go triple myself - you may not often need the inner ring but when you need it, you're stuffed if you haven't got it!!
For Alpine stuff I'll always gear as low as possible - I've gone as low as a 25" gear before. And used it.

 

[jimboalee]

Cranksets with two chainrings were developed a long time ago when rear freewheels had two or three sprockets. They were a way of doubling the numbers of gears on the bike.

Today, we have triples.

My triple is set up so my 'cruising' gear is in the middle of the ratios associated to the middle chainring.
For the majority of my riding, I only need to flick the rear changer.

I have the middle seven sprockets on the nine cassette going to the middle chainring.

I have engineered the gearing so 65" ( my Max efficiency gear ) is the middle of the whole series of fifteen ratios.

Only when there is a fierce tailwind I use the large ring, and up steep hills I use the small ring.

 

[jimboalee]

To expand on this theme.

For choosing the low gears, there is an old bit of witchcraft which is so simple, it defies belief.

It is however, based around a 'half decent' cyclist.

In years gone by, the gears would be fitted, the rider told where the hills are and it wouldn't be long before he became a 'half decent' cyclist.

Today, newbie buyers of bikes don't seem to have the time or willpower to become a 'half decent' cyclist by the 'ride up grades, don't ride upgrades' method, so we see Compacts and Triples on Roadrace bikes.

To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.

 

[jimboalee]

Don't get me wrong, triples are welcome in the Touring and Audax fraternities.

I draw the line at Sportives of less than 100 miles. These are 'mock races' where a time is scored and a medal given depending on the rider's result. All publicity denies they are races, but any event where a timing is scored is as much a race as anything, encouraging competitive spirit.
Anyone riding a Sportive with triple should be riding an Audax instead attempting to get round at the Max speed limit.

I say this because Sportives cost multiples of the price of Audaxes. If you need to pack a triple on a Sportive, you may as well save a lot of cash and go on the Audax.

Even if you do finish a Sportive in good time with a triple, you will be thought of as 'taking the easy option' by the others and there will be no kudos at the finish.

So if Sportives are your bag, consider the lack of kudos you'll get if you go with a triple.

 

[I am Spartacus]

Today, newbie buyers of bikes don't seem to have the time or willpower to become a 'half decent' cyclist by the 'ride up grades, don't ride upgrades' method, so we see Compacts and Triples on Roadrace bikes.To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.

oi , mush,
I like me compact
B)

 

[GrasB]

To old codgers like me, a Roadrace bike without a 53 ring or with a triple, is the sign of either a lazy or weak cyclist.

So a 39/53 & 12-27 block is for a strong cyclist but a 34/50 with 11-23 block is for a lazy/weak cyclist?.... something doesn't quite work there! Let me explain; the 'double' setup gives you 38 to 116" & the compact is 39 to 120"

 

[MacB]

So a 39/53 & 12-27 block is for a strong cyclist but a 34/50 with 11-23 block is for a lazy/weak cyclist?.... something doesn't quite work there! Let me explain; the 'double' setup gives you 38 to 116" & the compact is 39 to 120" B)

I think he meant to say lazy AND weak, not or