Road Cycling - Double or Triple?

I forgot to introduce my self as a newcomer. I apologize for that. The bike I'm looking at is being sold as a double and I'm concerned about having enough gears for climbing. Gotta get back into shape so I hope 18 gears is enough. Any suggestions? If I want to upgrade to a triple I have to change some stuf that could be more costly. Rear derailer, and a sprocket up front etc.

Hi bumpdog,

I too just bought a new bike. I was also concerned abut gearing. The bike I bought was the Fuji Cross. It comes stock with a 38/48 front crank and 12-25 in the rear cassette. This was too agressive for me. My lowest gear would have been 41.04 gear inches.

I didn't want a triple for personal reasons and went for a mtb rear cassette with 11-34. I also replaced the rear derailer with an xt derailer and the chain. This gave me a low gear of 30.18 gear inches. This is an improvement by 1.36 (ratio). Quite a difference. I have found this to be great, it ran me about $100 extra.

Check out some of the sites about gearing such as sheldon browns http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gearing/index.html

good luck,
-Duncan

Welcome Bumbdog,
If you consider that most roadies use doubles, this a good indication that a double would probably work for you also. If you are really concerned about gearing, stay with the double, and see if you can get a 12-27 cassette on the rear (a good solution for extra climbing torque). The 27 tooth gear would increase your gear ratio, compared to a 23 tooth (common gearing), by 17%. As an example, this gearing would take your granny gear cadence, for the same forward speed, from 75 to 88 rpm. ....a much easier spin.

Just an idea....
Good luck!

Listen carefully:

Don't under-gear your bike!

This is something novices do all the time, afraid that the hills in their area will be too big for a double and a sensible cassette spread. So, what they get is sloppy shifting, that they keep coming into the shop to complain about, and the loss of all of those nice gradations in gears that make it easy to maintain a spin.

Look... unless you live on the side of a mountain, you don't need a triple or a wide spread cassette. Hills will take work at first, of course, but they'll get much easier pretty quickly. Stick with the double and the cassette spread of no more than 12-27.

This sounds great. Thanks for the tips guys. It looks like I might be able to get away with the 12-27 to get what I want without the extra headache of changing the rear de-reailer.

Originally posted by peloton
Stick with the double and the cassette spread of no more than 12-27.

That is exactly what I have done: 53/39 chainrings; 12-27 cassette. Works great in the hills (at least, whenever I go there ;) ). On the flats (the defining characteristic of my country :mad: ), where you don't need 'granny gears', I would probably rather have a 12-23 cassette, because of the smoother transitions in shifting up/down. But buying two cassettes and chains and swapping them (and likely finetuning the derailler settings as well) according to the terrain at the moment is not an option for me...

I think it's too harsh a statement to say, "never get a triple". It all depends on your level of fitness (or more importantly how you expect your level of fitness to proceed), the terrain you'll be riding in and your style of riding. I myself had to make a decision between a double and a triple a while back and opted for a 39/53 double with a 12-27 cassette. I live on a plateau where every road up is on average a 9% grade (steepest is 12%) and no less than a mile long. I don't consider myself overly fit but I'm able to still maintain somewhere between a 7MPH to a 10MPH climb up the steepest sections so I think going with a double worked out well for me. YMMV.

Originally posted by peloton
Look... unless you live on the side of a mountain, you don't need a triple.

Or, unless you want to preserve your knees, and spin up hills as opposed to mash. While I easily have the power to run a double, I run a triple for the aforementioned reason. IMHO, dissuading all riders from a triple chainring is doing them a serious disservice. :)

I, too, just purchased a new bike with doubles and a 11-23 cassette. I purchased a 12-27 cassette to use while I get in "bike shape", and for longer and/or hillier rides.

So far it seems to work just fine. Also, I had no problem with the chain length working fine for both the 23 and 27 cogs.

Originally posted by Big R
Also, I had no problem with the chain length working fine for both the 23 and 27 cogs.

You may want to dedicate a seperate chain for each cassette anyways just so you match wear. Chains are pretty inexpensive all things considered. I would recommend a SRAM chain for ease of removal and installation.

Gear your bike for your riding and fitness. I live in S. Florida, there are no hills unless you count the overpass over the highway, but it's not uncommon to get a nice big headwind (or tail-wind). My bike has a 53/39 and a 12-23 on it, and it works great for me. In fact even in those big headwinds I rarely get into the 39-23 gear, and I'm even thinking of upping the front combo a bit, but I'll wait until there's a little more power in the legs for that (then go to something big like a 55/44 - or throw a 11-23 or 11-21 on the back and go with a 42t small chainring)

I'm not sure where in Jersey you live, but most of the state doesn't have that many big hills, but they are around. When I lived up there (northern part of the state about halfway between PA and NY) my bike had a 53/39 on it and a 13-27 on it, and I had no problems most of the time, there were a couple hills that would cause some problems, but not enough to warrant doing anything drastic and the thrill of decending would be enough to get me up the hill.

Andrew

And the answer is .... it depends!

I DID have a triple on my LeMond - it was set up that way and I bought it as a 2002 leftover. Rode it for a month, and had the LBS switch it to a double. I found that I just didn't use the smallest chainring. The double gives me a 39 instead of the 42 middle ring on the triple, which gives me a more satisfactory set up (53/39 in front, 12-25 in the back). I am in central Mass which I would describe as rolling hills. I found that after a few weeks of riding, I got my legs back and was fine.

I like the freedom to climb as steep a hill as I might ever face so I will vote for the triple (I can deal with an extra couple of grams, and even a sneer or two). I also prefer spinning to mashing for extended periods. There are hills around here that take 20 to 30 minutes to climb and if I had to mash all the way up my knees would not be recovered for another ride the next day.

Go triple, I say. I run a triple (30-42-52) with a 12-23 cassette. I get all of the advantages of a corn cob spread for efficient cadence on the flat/rolling stuff with enough small gears for big hills.

Used the 21 for the first time yesterday (5km at 9% average) - so I've still got a gear spare for really big hills. Plus the triple keeps a straighter chainline across the whole cassette.

So far I'm looking for a practical downside: I get closer ratios than you 12-27ers with a larger spread of gears and longer component life. Stuff the image.

Originally posted by doonster
Stuff the image.

I don't think it has anything to do with image. Most people (who went with a double... including myself) went with the double because the shifting was less finicky. When I was getting my bike built up, I tried one of the bikes at the shop that had an Ultegra triple and another with an Ultegra double. I felt that the double shifted better and figured the 12-27 would give me ample gearing for the hills. I can still manage a relatively high spin in a 39x27.

I was dumb and got a 13/28 cassette and triple crank. I was unaware!

But with that said, there are some monster hills in San Francisco. Was my wimping out justified?

All of this gearing talk has got me to thinking about the gearing on my own bike. And I wonder if I really need a granny as I have used it all but once and that was on my first ride. Since then, I've gotten used to the bike and haven't dropped it down there since.

The terrain up here in Ontario is more rolling hills then long steep climbs. The cassette on the back is a 12-27 like everyone else has described. I find it interesting that switching from a 42 to a 39 up front seems to make such a big difference as we are only taking about three teeth here. Especially around here, I can easily spin up the hills in the middle ring, and still have a couple gears to spare. Also momentum can be a huge friend, and if I'm paying attention I can use a DH off one hill to get me up the next one for the most part.

The guys at my LBS said that If I wanted to I could tighten down the limit screw on the Fr derailluer to keep the bike from shifting to the granny should I decide to remove it. I'm a little skeptical as to if that is really a practical idea, since the chain line will be a little to the outside, as I imagine a double crank, sits further inboard, giving a more centered chain line with the cassette. Also as a "test", I monkeyed (sp?) with the derailluer and it seems to bugger up the shifting a bit. Hmmmm...maybe not the best idea?

Just something for me to think about. I'm in no hurry to start taking parts off my still new bike.

Isnt it pretty basic,triple if ya got hills and a double if ya dont.

Ummm... if you're pedalling in 39x27 at less that 60 rpm, then you're moving at less than 6 mph and you are probably having a lot of trouble staying upright. 60 rpm isn't exactly spinning, but it isn't mashing either. If you need a lower gear than that, then you probably shouldn't be riding uphill anyway.

I know this is going to cheese a lot of you off, but let's face it... triples are for loaded touring and for old men who are just too afraid of doubles.

Originally posted by peloton
If you need a lower gear than that, then you probably shouldn't be riding uphill anyway.

I know this is going to cheese a lot of you off, but let's face it... triples are for loaded touring and for old men who are just too afraid of doubles.

Ouch!!! :D

I'm glad I got my triples. Why? Because someday when I switch to doubles:

- I'll know what it's like to be a young man again.

- I can ride hills knowing that it's approved practice only on doubles.

- I will no longer be confused as a silly "touring" cyclist (even though I carry no gear).

- That finicky shifting will disappear completely.

Sarcasm aside...I got triples on my bike because I wanted that extra security of knowing I had the option--especially as a newbie. Guess what? They came in handy more often than not. I was able to survive many group rides because of those "granny" gears. I have no problems on flats and gradual hills--in fact I'm usually the one doing the pulling. Steep climbs hurt!

Is it a training issue? Maybe. Knee problems? Yes. Fact that I'm 6'3" 245lbs and don't want my legs to look like rhino legs (which happens very quickly with me)? Definitely.

The good news is...three years later and I haven't used the granny gears at all this season. That tells me my overall conditioning is better and is a definite sign of improvement. (Unfortunately, the local tailor is happy because I regularly need to buy new slacks to accommodate my thighs).

I can honestly say, I've not experienced the finicky shifting some have described. Maybe I don't know any better?

Bottom line, I highly encourage triples for a newbie unless, as someone else pointed out, you live in an area where the only hills in your area are highway overpasses.

Originally posted by BikingCT


Bottom line, I highly encourage triples for a newbie unless, as someone else pointed out, you live in an area where the only hills in your area are highway overpasses.

I agree - you REALLY need to be honest about YOUR level of conditioning an ability as a newbie.

Originally posted by peloton
I know this is going to cheese a lot of you off, but let's face it... triples are for loaded touring and for old men who are just too afraid of doubles.

Talk to me in 10 years when your knees are shot! :D

I hear so much about granny gears and smooth shifting and needing triples.Something must be wrong with me or i'm doing something wrong when i ride.Help me.I'll do a 30 mile ride and only shift maybe 3-4 times the whole ride.What am i doing wrong.

I can't tell if I'm glad that I started this thread or not. LOL! Its actually given me a lot of really good information as to how I should go about buying a new bike, as well as the options I will have even if I only get a double. Here in the Princeton, NJ area, there isn't much in the way of serious climbs so I think I'll probably go with the double setup. All of this input has been fanatastic! Thanks to everyone who submitted a reply.

bumpdog
newbie
bike - still looking

I like a tripple myself. What's all this crap about tripples not shifting smooth? I have ridden my friends ultegra double and I swear my 105 tripple shifts better and smoother. Maby I'm just a lot better at keeping everything tuned to the max?;)

Several stupid statements here ("old men afraid of doubles", etc.). It is all personal choice and what one wants in their riding.

Also, not sure what the "sloppy" shifting is in triples. I ride both doubles and triples (Campy) and can't tell that there is any difference in their shifting performance. I would suggest it is more a matter of good alignment and proper adjustment than anything else to get good shifting with either. Perhaps it is a Shimano thing, so I wouldn't know.

So pick whichever fits your needs. Lots of hills and not wanting to knock yourself out everytime you go up one, get a double. Well fit and a strong 'B' or 'A' level rider, a double should suit you fine. But riding either a triple or double does not make you a 'man'.

If the question "Do I need a triple?" ever enters your head, you need a triple. With a triple you can enjoy the smooth shifting of a close ratio casette without losing the low gears. Most of the gear shifting is with the casette.

Originally posted by khuon
I don't think it has anything to do with image. Most people (who went with a double... including myself) went with the double because the shifting was less finicky. When I was getting my bike built up, I tried one of the bikes at the shop that had an Ultegra triple and another with an Ultegra double. I felt that the double shifted better and figured the 12-27 would give me ample gearing for the hills. I can still manage a relatively high spin in a 39x27.


105 is made w/ a triple option - Ultegra is not. I find it no surprise to hear that you liked the Ultegra double better than the triple since it is not ment to have one.:D

Originally posted by 2Boxers
105 is made w/ a triple option - Ultegra is not. I find it no surprise to hear that you liked the Ultegra double better than the triple since it is not ment to have one.:D

I believe Ultegra does indeed have a triple option.

You are correct they do have an Ultegra triple option. What I ment to say is that Ultegra is designed as a double (a triple option is available- marketing dept wins!) 105 is designed as a triple and there for "my" experiance is the 105 triple works better than the ultegra triple. The main difference in performance is in the shifters as the 105 is set up to handle the triple better.

Sorry for my lack of correct info and poor communication in the last post.

Gotcha - interesting!

Originally posted by peloton
I know this is going to cheese a lot of you off, but let's face it... triples are for loaded touring and for old men who are just too afraid of doubles.

If you have ever biked in the Rocky Mountains you would be wishing for that triple! So it's not just for old men!
;) It's for girls too I guess, heh?

That being said I have a triple and I am extremely happy with. However, I also live 20 min. from the Mountains so I climb almost daily.

Originally posted by 2Boxers
105 is made w/ a triple option - Ultegra is not. I find it no surprise to hear that you liked the Ultegra double better than the triple since it is not ment to have one.:D

Eh? Ultegra had a triple option when I was bike shopping for a new roadbike (2001). Here's the specs on the LeMond I tested with an Ultegra triple (http://www.epinions.com/bicycles_2001_LeMond_Zurich_Triple/display_~full_specs). I compared it to the same model in an Ultegra double (http://www.epinions.com/bicycles_2001_LeMond_Zurich/display_~full_specs).

Originally posted by 2Boxers
What I ment to say is that Ultegra is designed as a double (a triple option is available- marketing dept wins!) 105 is designed as a triple and there for "my" experiance is the 105 triple works better than the ultegra triple.

Hmmm... I don't understand... The Ultegra triple group comes with triple-compatible BB, derailleurs, crankset and shifters. They were all redesigned to work with a triple chainring just like the 105 triple.

Got back to road riding after many years on an mt. bike. Never even considered not getting a triple up front. That said, we do have some good climbs in the Portland area, so I'm pretty happy that I've got it.

I have an Ultegra double and an Ultegra Triple which I can ride. When they are both tuned up, I can't tell the difference.

Isn't this a bit like arguing about what someone else likes best? If you want a triple, get a triple. To hell what other people say or think. It is your bike, not theirs. They are your knees and thighs, not theirs.

I have used the granny gear maybe once in the last several months, but without it, I would have been walking. The hill? Remember, Mork's direction to his home planet? Go to the moon and hang an up? Well, that was what this hill was like.

I am secure with myself and who I am and I want a triple. Some of you don't. So, I like Coors Original and some like Sam Adams. So what?

Originally posted by TrekRider
So, I like Coors Original and some like Sam Adams. So what?

Wait a minute... you can't use this analogy with doubles vs. triples! There's no real harm in going with one type of chainring setup versus the other once you accept each's limitations but when you start talking about beer on the other hand... :D :beer:

Originally posted by shokhead
Isnt it pretty basic,triple if ya got hills and a double if ya dont.
Now i have to quote myself.This tread is longer then the sock one and its a short answer.

It wasn't too long ago when you simply could not buy a triple on a road bike. The standard was the 52/42 double and all was well with the world. No one complained, and those of us who rode seriously had no trouble making the climbs. Over the last five years, the road bike market demographic has changed. The road bike has become a fitness fashion statement and baby boomers who had turned their knees into hamburder during the running boom are falling all over themselves to buy road bikes. Some were mountain bikers who just can't do the lifestyle anymore.

However, they look at the road bikes and they tremble in fear at the prospect of making an effort on the hills. They want the bike to do the work for them and they don't care if they climb at 4 mph. After all, they're not cyclists, per se, so much as they are fitness enthusiasts indulging in their latest fitness trend.

So manufacturers borrowed triple technology from tourers and MTBs (they sweetened the pot by adapting MTB frame design so the road bikes wouldn't look so foreign). It gives the ageing boomers a comfort level, even if they never actually use the granny gear.

Is there anything wrong with a triple? Some things. The long cage RDs shift slowly and it's a real pain to fine tune the FD shifting. It adds weight, and the longer BB spindle adds flex. But none of it is really all that damning.

Do you need a triple? If you are an ageing baby boomer or older, or you have bad kneesor you don't want to suffer when hills get really steep, go for it. But cycling is partly about suffering, and if you don't embrace that, you are not a cyclist.

I have an Ultegra triple on my Zurich. I can't make it up the hills here with a double. I carry mail up and down the streets all day, screwing my knees up. I really do need to improve my fitness level, but a triple is just fine with me, since I ride for fun anyway.

As pokey would say, what a load of applesauce.

I even recall some TdF riders having triples. But then, peloton, you wouldn't regard them as real cyclists, would you?

Originally posted by peloton
It wasn't too long ago when you simply could not buy a triple on a road bike. The standard was the 52/42 double and all was well with the world. No one complained, and those of us who rode seriously had no trouble making the climbs. Over the last five years, the road bike market demographic has changed. The road bike has become a fitness fashion statement and baby boomers who had turned their knees into hamburder during the running boom are falling all over themselves to buy road bikes. Some were mountain bikers who just can't do the lifestyle anymore.

However, they look at the road bikes and they tremble in fear at the prospect of making an effort on the hills. They want the bike to do the work for them and they don't care if they climb at 4 mph. After all, they're not cyclists, per se, so much as they are fitness enthusiasts indulging in their latest fitness trend.

So manufacturers borrowed triple technology from tourers and MTBs (they sweetened the pot by adapting MTB frame design so the road bikes wouldn't look so foreign). It gives the ageing boomers a comfort level, even if they never actually use the granny gear.

Is there anything wrong with a triple? Some things. The long cage RDs shift slowly and it's a real pain to fine tune the FD shifting. It adds weight, and the longer BB spindle adds flex. But none of it is really all that damning.

Do you need a triple? If you are an ageing baby boomer or older, or you have bad kneesor you don't want to suffer when hills get really steep, go for it. But cycling is partly about suffering, and if you don't embrace that, you are not a cyclist.
Not a real cyclist.What a load of crap.I dont know if your full of yourself or crap.

I love this thread!

Originally posted by Markedoc
I love this thread!
LOL It is fun,isnt it.

I think that, when you have a 27 per cent climb at the end of a 10 mile ascent of a mountain in the Pyrenees (as at the Angliru in last year's Vuelta), a triple might be in order. Might. On the other hand, most of the riders opted for 27t cogs rather than triples, while the USPS riders in the Vuelta had triples -- mostly, in my mind, to promote DA triple. One or two riders used triples at Monte Zoncolan in tis year's Giro. None used triples at the Tour.

If it makes your old bones feel better that Roberto Heras used a triple in a publicity stunt for Shimano, then that's just great.

Originally posted by peloton
But cycling is partly about suffering, and if you don't embrace that, you are not a cyclist.

I run a triple for my knee's sake, and I love to suffer. I am able to suffer with great success - even in my lowly small chainring! ;)

Just a question peloton - every climbed up a 12,000 ft mountain or higher? It's possible with a double, but why kill yourself to protect your "ego". Granted double vs triple is a personal thing but as someone has already stated in this thread if you ride in the Rockies consistently you soon learn to appreciate a triple. I am a cyclist and proud to pedal a triple!

Originally posted by peloton
Do you need a triple? If you are an ageing baby boomer or older, or you have bad kneesor you don't want to suffer when hills get really steep, go for it. But cycling is partly about suffering, and if you don't embrace that, you are not a cyclist.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Double vs. Triple, it is defiantly a personal prefrence. But to say that having a triple makes you less than a cyclist is total BS!:irritated
Cycling as far as I have understood is all about reaching your personal best, going beyond your physical and mental limits. It's about beating your average, getting to the top of the mountain faster or even getting to the top at all.
Cycling is about facing the odds! Your lungs hurt, your back hurts, your legs, your arms, everything is screaming stop; but you keep going. The reason to keep going varies with everyone, from having to finish a race or trying to lose a few pounds.
The important thing is that you are out there on that bike trying for your PERSONAL BEST and THAT is what makes you a cyclist NOT your prefrence of a double or a triple!
:p