Road Cycling - Do I need a triple chainring?

I'm new to road biking and will be buying a bike soon. I've seen some good deals on bikes around here, some with steel frames and/or Ultegra components, but almost all of them have a double. It's somewhat hilly here in the DC area, but not mountainous. I think I'd be fine with a double locally, but I could potentially spend some time riding around Charlottesville, which can get up into the mountains.

Any advice for a newbie? Double, triple or will I have to get a second job and buy one of each?:D

IMHO, in DC and surrounding area, go for the double. You probably would never use the granny ring there. Even in the mountains, it is too easy to become dependent on the triple. I see it everyday among my riding buddies who ride the granny.

There nothing wrong in being dependant on a granny, it can save your knees from future problems if you live in very steep terrain.
Gearing is a personal choice. You should chose the range and ratios according to your strength, how steep the terrain is and how much stuff you carry.
Besides the double/triple choice, you can also go for low-ratio doubles and/or wide range rear cassettes.

I spent considerable amount of time commuting
by bike from Falls Church to either Arlington, or Downtown.
I also did alot of recreational riding.
I did it all on a 52/42 12/26 combo (old 6 speed) and
never felt the need for a triple.
If I were going to do alot of riding in Shennondoah valley
(blueridge etc.), or lived in Charlottesville etc. I'd go
for the triple.
Around DC I think with a 52/39 and say 12/28 you should
be fine.

Marty

Since you're new to road biking, (like I am) you'll probably find that the only time you'll need a triple is when you really really need it (like when you're near the end of an epic ride and there's one more hill to climb before you get home and all you see is a bright light with angels telling you to ride towards it). I hardly use the granny gear on my mtb but I have used it only when I really really needed it, like above. A triple gives you more versatility and can be a real asset if you find yourself ill-prepared for a sick climb. If you decide you don't need it after a while, you can always upgrade.

When in doubt, I'd go with the triple. I think it is nice to have - even if you rarely use it. It doesn't add much weight. The only downside is that the shifting isn't as smooth as with the double. It is a bit of a pain (to me), but worth the tradeoff.

I'd go with a 12-27 cassette in the rear rather than a triple. Now if you have really weak legs then the triple might be a consideration, so it depends on your personal stregnth level more than anything. Buit a 39/27 is pretty darned low gearing for a road bike.

Do I need a new 21 year old, 110lb, 5'-10" wife? Maybe. But I can sure get by with what I have, just fine.


Originally posted by Makoa
...Even in the mountains...

He He. The mountains of DC.

A double will be fine unless you have knee problem. Use the 30-50 dollars you save on another upgrade or a good pair of shorts.

Thanks for the advice everyone. No knee problems here.

Now the key is to figure out whether any of these bikes fit me. I've ridden a few 58cm and a few 61cm frames and honestly, I can't tell a big difference at this point (except for the 61cm Lemond Zurich, where I was really stretching out). I'm 6'2".

Being new to biking, I would definitely go with the triple. I have been into biking for a year now and have finally graduated to the double. It's very hilly here in Tennesse. I was able to go to the double by going to the gym a lot and working out my legs.

On my racing and endurance/training bicycles, I have the double. On my commuting, mountain, touring, and hybride bicycles, I have the triple.

You didn't say anything about your age, weight, or if there are any health problems.
If you're young and in good health get the double. Start with the 12-27 in the rear. Then swap that for a 11-23 when you get some strength in your legs.
If you're older or have weight or health problems get the triple.

Let the LBS do a bike FIT for you to make sure you ge the correct frame size, saddle height, stem, etc.

and if the 12-27 isn't enough you can always throw on an MTB derailleur with an 11-32 cassette. A bottom gear of 39/32 is pretty low and should handle most any hill.

I didn't make that very clear--I'm 28, no health problems and in good shape. I'm not new to biking, just to a road bike. I've ridden around here for several years and did a ride from New York to DC last year in three days on my mountain bike (with slicks of course), including 127 miles on the second day. So I think I can probably go with the double, but I wanted to get a little feedback to make sure I'm not crazy ;)

I saw what's wrong with having a triple? I really think part of the time, it's a vanity thing when people go with a double- like it shows they are just sooooo strong, they don't need those granny gears. There's nothing wrong with having a triple, and if you can get it, go for it! So you'll not use it that often, so what? At least you have the option to use it if the opportunity ever comes around. I definitely think there are people that look down on the granny gears, and perhaps they can get away with not having them, but I bet they could probably go even faster if they'd give themselves "permission" to get a triple instead of a double.

I think it's a worthwhile investment- besides that, what happens if you take your road bike on a trip to a place with real hills, and you're stuck wishing you had that triple chainring as you're grinding up the mountainside!

Oh, believe me, I'm not too macho to use a triple. It's just that some of the bikes I'm considering come with a double and I'm pretty much at my budget limit already (for now).

Originally posted by Greg
He He. The mountains of DC.

well Greg, they ain't the Sangre de Christo's, or the Sierra
Nevadas but the shennandoah valley does have mountains.
You know, the Blue Ridge mountains?

And just in case my wife is reading this, I don't need
a new 21 yo 110lb 5'10 wife.

Marty

Speaking from experience (I used to live in Falls Church and did a lot of PPTC rides), I think you'll be fine with the double. If you're riding in the mountains only occasionally you probably don't need to get a triple. You can always throw on a cassette with more teeth for the times you need lower gearing.

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
I'd go with a 12-27 cassette in the rear rather than a triple. Now if you have really weak legs then the triple might be a consideration, so it depends on your personal stregnth level more than anything. Buit a 39/27 is pretty darned low gearing for a road bike.

I agree with SamDaBikinMan. I was on the fence between a double and a triple and ended up choosing the double (39/53) with a 12-27 cassette. The downside is that I don't have a 16 which I really seem to want on the flats. It looks like the new Shimano 10sp Dura-Ace cassette will now come with a 16 in the 12-27 range... Yay! Looks like an upgrade is in my near future! I live on a plateau where all roads are 10% and steeper going up and about a mile long so I do make quite a bit of use of the 39x27. I sometimes wish for the triple with a low granny but I've never had to walk up. All in all, I'm happy with a double and the shifting does seem much smoother than with a triple. I'm not discouraging people from getting a triple though but I do suggest that looks can be deceiving and sometimes a double will do just fine. If you've got bad knees or other such considerations then by all means go for the triple.

You don't need a triple if you are riding in DC and immediate surroundings. I ride from Silver Spring, MD to downtown DC, and back everyday on a double 42-53 and 13-21 rear freewheel. There is one burly hill at Meridian Hill park on 15th St. but it only lasts about 1.5 blocks. I get winded by the end but after that it is a piece of cake.

If you are out of shape maybe you should consider the triple but I don't think you need it. You don't need a million kazillion rear cogs either. I get by just fine with 6-8.

If wza97 decides to ride in Prince William County or south and west of Fairafx the triple might come in handy.

I bet you double guys dont use the air conditioning in your cars either? :D

Originally posted by wza97
I didn't make that very clear--I'm 28, no health problems and in good shape. I'm not new to biking, just to a road bike. I've ridden around here for several years and did a ride from New York to DC last year in three days on my mountain bike (with slicks of course), including 127 miles on the second day. So I think I can probably go with the double, but I wanted to get a little feedback to make sure I'm not crazy ;)

Well, I will use your decision to make myself stay with the double chainring also. I am going to do a long touring cross country, and some folks MORE than SUGGEST to have a triple, saying something like: "don't even think about trying to use a double"... but I felt it should be enough, and if the hill is so steep, I d be saving more energy by just pushing it.

Let's go double! :D

I second the "when in doubt, get a triple" idea. It adds very little weight to the bike, almost no cost and can save your rear at the end of a really long ride with that last huge hill staring you in the face.

As for the guys who think that a triple makes a bike look weak, they are so concerned with looks they probably dont ride anyway because the sweat messes up their hair they spent an hour arranging :-)

Allan

In flying they say the three most useless things are fuel left in the pump, runway behind you, and altitude above you. I might add that a triple ring left at the LBS would be on the list of cycling's most useless things.

Let me ask this: if I get a bike that comes from the factory with a double ring (no triple option), is it going to be hard/expensive to upgrade to a triple? I don't know much about the mechanics, but will I need a new front derailleur, bottom bracket, etc.?

Right now I have a good deal lined up for a nice steel frame and Ultegra components, but it's at my budget limit. It seems like most of the triples are on less-expensive bikes (aluminum frames primarily). A good frame is the #1 priority, no?

Triples on less expensive bikes? I have to admit I havent seen any triples on $5000+ bikes at my LBS, but in my opinion the Trek 5500s and 5200s are not exactly "less expensive" unless you are comparing them to the $5000 bikes.


Yes the frame is important, but the most important things are the complete bicycle fit (this is a factor of frame, but also seat, post, bars, pedals and cranks) followed by what you want. If you dont like the bike then regardless of how good or expensive it is, it is worthless because you wont be happy. I know this sounds crazy but even the paint job is critical, because if you feel weird riding a bike that only comes in pink, you wont ride as much, and therefore the bike isnt for you. Get it?

Allan

Flea--I just meant that of the bikes I've looked at within my price range, all of the steel ones with nice components have doubles. Some of the aluminum frames and 105 component-equipped bikes come with triples. The best fit I've found is on a Fuji Roubaix and Fuji Marseille. The geometry is almost exactly the same, but the Roubaix is aluminum-105-triple and the Marseille is steel-Ultegra-double. So you see my dilemma--the Marseille is a little more expensive, but the steel and Ultegra are more enticing for not a considerable amount more money.

I rode some other brands and the more expensive ones were doubles. Coincidence? Possibly. Remember that I'm not talking about bargain-basement, but not talking about $2000 bikes either.

Well the Ultegra is certainly a bonus but I am not a fan of steel so that doesnt really do anything for me. I live where the humidity going from inside to outside can cause a gallon of water to condense on the inside of the tubes (well maybe not a gallon) and last thing I want is rust on the inside of my bike! Add to that the fact that I really dont see any difference between steel and alu on the ones I rode.

For you however, you need to decide if you like the ride quality of one better than the other. Some people swear steel is a better ride, ride both and see what you think. 105 are good components too, just not quite as sweet as Ultegra. You may not see a difference, in which case a triple 105 may be just what you need.

Dont let someone talk you in to overbuying either, get whatever makes you happy :-)

Allan

I agree that if you can get a triple to get it, you don't have to use it if you don't need to. But it is always nice to have. Doesn't cost too much more, and the weight isn't too much more. Expecially if you planned to do some riding in the mountains. I've done Mountains of Misery in Christiansburg, VA, and was glad I had the triple.

Now this is getting complicated. The bike I want comes with a double. How hard will it be to upgrade to a triple crank? I know the crank itself is a little over $100. What else would I need to do?

If you haven't picked up the bike yet, check with your LBS. I would think that they would do the conversion for a nominal up-charge. The cost of the triple and the double components ought to be nearly the same. So mainly it's the cost of the labor and if the bike has to be built up then even that's not an issue.

Originally posted by wza97
Now this is getting complicated. The bike I want comes with a double. How hard will it be to upgrade to a triple crank? I know the crank itself is a little over $100. What else would I need to do?

I recently purchased a touring bike that had a road triple (105) but I wanted an MTB Triple (Deore LX).

The LBS made the switch for free, including the bottom bracket. To be honest the LX probably costs a little less than the 105.

So you might be able to get the shop to switch out the cranks for the difference in value between the double and triple, not the entire cost of the triple. They can sell the double to someone else. The other change needed might be the front derailer.

I was looking at an Ultegra bike at supergo which they had in stock with a double. They wanted $175 to convert it to a triple. (I declined)

If it's that much, I won't do it right now. I can always do it later if I can't handle the double. I don't see any mountainous riding in the imminent future.

I find that I used the small ring alot when I was just restarting to ride. At this point, I ride the upper two. Very rarely I will shift into the small ring at the top of nasty hills. It's nice to have it, if you want it.

I just built a road bike with 48-34 rings in front and 12-32 in back. A well planned drivetrain does not need a triple.

Following that logic then a better planned drivetrain than the one you planned wouldnt need a double, correct?

Allan

I'm waiting for the singlespeeders to pipe up now. :D

i always used doubles.. Never even touched a roadbike with a triple..

But yesterday, I rode with some guys(2 of them acutally)..

One had a double but had MTB cogs(12-30) and the other had a triple(48/38/3x) and had mtb cogs.. Judging on the setup, thier bikes were for climbing and speed..

My gearing is 52/42 w/ 12-23rear.

At first, in more flatter roads(5-7deg incline), i can still meet thier speed. I was spinning at 42-23.. But when it got steeper, about 10deg-12deg, spinning at that gearing is impossible(at my current fitness level).

So I fell back.. My legs were killing me just to keep up. But, they had "superior" gearing. I had no chance.

Now, I think its about time I get a triple...

Go with the double. It will be suitable for all but the steepest of climbs. A standard rear cassette is an 11-23 which gives you gears with tooth counts ranging from an 11-tooth to a 23-tooth for the lowest gear for climbing. One option is to order a 12-25 or even a 12-27 cassette for that extra spin factor!

Originally posted by Bikesick
Go with the double. It will be suitable for all but the steepest of climbs. A standard rear cassette is an 11-23 which gives you gears with tooth counts ranging from an 11-tooth to a 23-tooth for the lowest gear for climbing. One option is to order a 12-25 or even a 12-27 cassette for that extra spin factor!

thanks for the encouragement.

I'm going to conquer that 10km climb(5-12? deg incline) w/ a double.. My target is 25kmh, I only averaged 18.6kmh yesterday...

I'm going to do it today! Wish me luck!

The bike I bought has a triple, but I am 43 and just getting back into biking after a 10 year layoff. It is nice on the steep hills at the moment (and especially on the one mountain ride I did) ... I'm guessing that if I stay dedicated to the sport, I might not need it as much in the future. Then again, I live a few hours away from the Adirondacks and the White Mountains, where it will almost always be a bonus!

Don't see much downside to the triple at this juncture ...

Originally posted by Bikesick
Go with the double. It will be suitable for all but the steepest of climbs.

Not if you like a medium to high cadence .... and your knees. :)

Originally posted by wza97
is it going to be hard/expensive to upgrade to a triple?

In 2000 I bought a full Ultegra Cdale R2000 and it cost $30.00 extra for the triple.

A good shop will do you right.

P.S. search this subject for a bushel of threads.

Originally posted by Flea77
Following that logic then a better planned drivetrain than the one you planned wouldnt need a double, correct?

Allan

Flea,

my drivetrain IS well planned. My top gear of 48/12 will get me to 30+ mph and my low gear of 34/32 will conquer any hill I dare to climb.

But you didnt answer my question. Your logic seems to say that if you plan well you can elmininate the need for one chain ring. Doesnt it stand to reason then that if you plan better then you could get rid of the second one as well?

If the answer is yes, then why are you running a double? If the answer is no, then it seems to me your logic is flawed.

Personally, at this stage, the triple was the way to go for me. Especially since I did not, and do not, know exactly what gears I do or do not need. Therefore buying a triple gave me the ability to use any gear in a wider range than a double.

Considering that the triple and double were the same price on my bike, and the triple's weight is negligable, in my opinion it would have been stupid to buy a double.

Remember that we are talking about someone who is new to road riding here, not someone who has been racing for ten years. The newcomer is not likely to know what gears they will or will not need. Additionally anyone new to the sport will go through some serious changes in the first few months, not to mention the first few years that could very well mean that gears that were tough are now easy, so then they would have to buy new gears for the rear if they did what you suggested.

Allan

OK. Here's the deal wza97.

No one can tell you whether or not you need a triple. It's a decision for each individual based upon the their fitness, riding style, local terrain, etc. If you like to stand or mash big gears on hills then you don't need no stinkin' triple. If you are in a relatively flat area (e.g., rollers, short steep hills, flat, or hills are long but not steep) then you don't need no stinkin' triple. If you are young, have strong kness, or are very fit then you don't need no stinkin' triple.

If you don't fit any of the above, then you should consider a triple. If you are in doubt. ask the LBS if you can take the bike out, find a big, steep (> 8% over 2-3 miles) hill (Shookstown Pike, Mar-Lu Ridge, and Washington Monument Rd come to mind) and give ]'er a go.

If you can climb these hills and are not in serious difficulty, then go for the double. If you are out of shape and can manage with a double, stay with the double.

If your body says "No effin' way I can do this without lower gears" then go for the triple.

SteveE

Now I think I might be changing my mind ...

Did a nice ride this am - 42 miles, avg about 17 mph, rolling hills in Boston MetroWest. Used the smallest ring (30) once, and probably wouldn't have if my middle ring was a 39 instead of the 42 that it is.

No knee problems here, am in pretty decent shape by virtue of running and spinning during the "off season" ... I stick with weight training year-round.

Leaning towards a double in front at this point ... hmmm ....

Of course,
it's a nice ride up to Burlington, but you'd want a triple for that I would think

Burlington VT or Burlington Mass?

:-)