Road Cycling - double or triple?

i dont know if i should get a double or a triple...my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure. this would be my first road bike. what do you think?

my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure.

I am not sure either. Part of the answer depends on your terrain (how much and how steep will you be climbing) and your strength.

Personally, I think the traditional double is nicer. A 39t chainring and a 27t cog should get you over most elevations.

I like the shifting of a double, and as Bruco says a 39-27 combo is plenty for most climbing. If you're reasonably fit, you probably don't need the triple chainrings, though many riders like the security of knowing they have a bailout gearset.

sorry for my newbieness, but chainring and cog.....im guessing that the 39 means the size of the smaller front sprocket and the cog is the largest of the cassette?

shimano_cranker: yes, thats true



i have an old vintage bike, so i stripped alot of stuff ... now it only has a single 39 ring in the front and 12-25 cassette in the rear... will that be enough for most riding?

ok just one more question....how about a 39 chainring and a 23 cog. the bike i want comes with this setup. i know i can always get a new cassette or a new crank so its not a huge deal. i am just wondering.

Impossible to say without knowing more of where and how you ride.

I just went through the same decision ten minutes ago when I ordered a 105 upgrade kit online. I ended up with the triple. I'm in pretty good shape but the triple comes in handy because I have a lot of steep hills where I live and sometimes as part of your training (or just because you feel like it) you need to go out for a lower intensity ride.

Having those 3 lower gears with the triple gives me the option to do a lower intensity ride right out of my garage. With a double I would be forced to either ride harder with all the hills around me or put the bike in the car and drive to a flatter route.

Triples are for scenery watching touring folk. :p ;) :D :o :)

In all seriousness, I can't see a triple ever being a true necessity.

is a single 39 ring tall enough for downhill and flat surfaces? used with 171 crank

ok just one more question....how about a 39 chainring and a 23 cog. the bike i want comes with this setup. i know i can always get a new cassette or a new crank so its not a huge deal. i am just wondering.

39x23 is quite a bit harder to turn on a climb than 39x27, but if you don't climb or have great legs, why not?

I ride a 12-27 (9 speed) cassette. What is good about it is the versatility; the down side is that some middle gears are 'sacrificed' for the 'granny cogs'.

One thought about getting a replacement crankset and cassette later on: that will probably turn out to be more expensive. If the bike you are looking at is new, the LBS could easily swap the cassette for one that matches your needs (and sell the 11-23 (?) to another customer) at a relatively mild 'upgrade price'. Once you have been riding the bike, that's no longer an option and you would simply have to pay the full monty for the replacement parts.

i dont know if i should get a double or a triple...my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure. this would be my first road bike. what do you think?
Do you have any bike now? If so how is it geared? Ride it or a borrowed bike around your area and see how it feels. Yesterday the wind was very hard I went to a pretty low gear going up hill into the wind.
HTH
Joe

Do you have any bike now? If so how is it geared? Ride it or a borrowed bike around your area and see how it feels. Yesterday the wind was very hard I went to a pretty low gear going up hill into the wind.
HTH
Joe

i only own a mountain bike right now. theres no comparison on how it is geared opposed to a road bike. when i test ride more bikes then i will go into the lowest gear and check out how it goes. this will be my first road bike and i am doing a lot of research for it :D

In all seriousness, I can't see a triple ever being a true necessity.

You can't? No matter where you live?

I can't see a triple ever being a true necessity.

No, it's more of a nice benefit with no real downside for recreational riders.

Now if you're racing, it's a totally different story.

Yeah, I've only ever raced and all riding was to train for it.

I still think that for the vast majority of the cycling population, a double with a 39x27 should be plenty.

>>No, it's more of a nice benefit with no real downside for recreational riders
You dont get many ultra-steep hills in the US. Over here in the UK we have some 20%+ gradients, long enough for triples to be useful, but it can take a bit of effort to fnd these climbs.
If you ever want to carry a load on your bike, they are also more than nice.

i only own a mountain bike right now. theres no comparison on how it is geared opposed to a road bike. when i test ride more bikes then i will go into the lowest gear and check out how it goes.
Simply, the mechanics of pushing a low gear up a moderate hill is different between a Mtb and a road bike. Where you might definitely need your granny gear on a Mtb, maybe a 39/23 on a road bike is sufficient enough for use on the same climb. You will definitely get up that hill faster and quicker on a road bike. Here, I think the lighter weight of a road bike is one factor. In most cases, a granny on a road bike is really not necessary..... IMO....

George

You also have to consider rider weight. A 130 pound rider should never need a triple for any hill.

A 210 pound rider OTOH who rides a lot of steep hills could probably make very good use of one.

You also have to consider rider weight. A 130 pound rider should never need a triple for any hill.

A 210 pound rider OTOH who rides a lot of steep hills could probably make very good use of one.Good points.....

<snip>You dont get many ultra-steep hills in the US.

:eek:
I have one word for you:
MONTANA

With a triple you can have close ratio cogs at the back (11-21 or 11-23), which give much snappier shifting, without sacrificing the availability of real low gear for dragging a load up steep hills.

You also have to consider rider weight. A 130 pound rider should never need a triple for any hill.

A 210 pound rider OTOH who rides a lot of steep hills could probably make very good use of one.

That's not true. I'm 130 myself and use a triple to climb. Although it's not really by choice, considering the bike is 26-27lbs loaded, only came as a triple, and the 42T middle ring doesn't like getting in the lower gears. But in converting my usual climbing gear (30/18) to gear inches and comparing them to a 39T ring, a 23t rear cog would be just about the same. I'd also say it depends on how you like to climb. If you mash, then a triple would be rather wasted, but if you prefer spinning it could help quite a bit.

Sounds like you are young, I'd go for a double. I am ancient (46), female and overweight and have a triple. I use it all the time. When I ride hubby's bike with a double, I do just fine. Once you start riding, you'll probably meet up with other guys. You'll be glad you don't have a triple. I think you may suffer at first, but in the long run a double would be best.

shoot. i just started (until my bike was stole) and i was using a 48 front to go up hills. i think the double will be just fine. they usually put plenty of rear gears on them anyway. most importantly.. go for the best bike you can afford.

That's not true. I'm 130 myself and use a triple to climb. Although it's not really by choice, considering the bike is 26-27lbs loaded, only came as a triple, and the 42T middle ring doesn't like getting in the lower gears. But in converting my usual climbing gear (30/18) to gear inches and comparing them to a 39T ring, a 23t rear cog would be just about the same. I'd also say it depends on how you like to climb. If you mash, then a triple would be rather wasted, but if you prefer spinning it could help quite a bit.
This brings up an interesting point...

The small ring on a double is usually 39t, and the middle ring on a triple is usually 42t. So even dropping into the small ring (30t) on a triple does not mean that you'd run out of gears on a double. While I ride a double (53-39 with either 12-23 or 12-27, depending on the ride), the big advantage I see with a triple is being able to run a straight block cassette (11 or 12 - 21 or 23), allowing you to easily fine tune gear selection to find the perfect gear, and still have some low gear-inch climbing gears.

But in converting my usual climbing gear (30/18) to gear inches and comparing them to a 39T ring, a 23t rear cog would be just about the same.

Exactly.

Comparing my triple to a fairly standard double setup, I have about two to three lower gears on the triple (just the two or three biggest cogs on the smallest ring).

Sounds like you might actually be better off with a double.

the big advantage I see with a triple is being able to run a straight block cassette (11 or 12 - 21 or 23), allowing you to easily fine tune gear selection to find the perfect gear, and still have some low gear-inch climbing gears.

That, and having a couple gears that way go lower. Even with a 12-27 on the back with a double you'll be short or three gears that really notch down from there. They come in handy when you're on a long steep climb and don't feel like busting a gut.

i dont know if i should get a double or a triple...my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure. this would be my first road bike. what do you think?

I ride regularly in New England (New Hampshire), and we have plenty of steep hills around here. I am very fit, and so are the two guys I ride with. I have a triple. They have doubles. Our bikes are similar in weight (within a pound or two), and we are similar weights (180-200) and close in age (29, 35, 40). I am both the youngest and the lightest in the group. We have a great time riding together, and the only time we talk about triple V. double cranks is on a couple of our steeper climbs. They make it up the climbs, but are standing and grinding it out. I am right with them sitting and spinning. They have said at times that they wish they had a triple; however, neither of them has switched. That being said one of my riding partners just moved to Denver where there are epic climbs, and he has not converted to a triple yet, and is enjoying the riding. I think the weight penalty is negligible for the average cyclist. As far as I can tell for the recreational rider there is only one drawback to a triple. Some people think you are not a serious cyclist, and who cares what they think.

i dont know if i should get a double or a triple...my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure. this would be my first road bike. what do you think?

Well...

since a 50+ tooth chainring is too big to be useful (especially since this is your first road bike) that means a 53-39 double crankset only gives you one useable chainring. A 52-42-30 triple, however, will give you two useful chainrings. If you are buying a complete bike from a shop these are probably your only choices.

If you are building your own bike you can customize the gearing to give you a reasonable range with only two chainrings. On my bike I run 48-34 chainrings with an 11-32 cassette.

Well...

since a 50+ tooth chainring is too big to be useful (especially since this is your first road bike)

You can't say that. What if he's riding downhill?

I happen to like a tripple. Those extra 2 or 3 lower gears some times make a real difference on really steep climbs, even if they are sorta short. I also like having the third ring on days with really strong winds, or when I just don't feel like pushing hard. I like a tripple with a 12-23 over a doubble with a 12-27 any day. To each their own, this is my preference. ;)

For what its worth here is my opinion: If you are going to race get a double. If your gonna tour get a triple. Reason being if your going to race then you will be competing with people that use double set ups and you need to have similiar gears. ie if they push a 39/23 up the big hills and you cannot then you lose. But loaded touring requires a triple for steep hills carying weight. I rode a touring bike set up w/ a triple for years and I found getting a new raceing bike that I do not need the triple. I run a 12-27 now and can go up anything. I found when I rode the touring triple that sure it was easy as hell to spin up hills but for each turn of the crank that my buddies pulled they were much further up the hill then I. Also spinning gets your heart rate up a lot higher which can be worse off. Years ago I lived in CT and rode all over the place on a double.

btw the argument that a triple will allow you to run a nice tight cassette is a good one. You can run a 12-21 with a triple and go up any hills you want.

I suffered thru this same debate months ago when I was buying a new bike and I can say that I am glad I got the triple. Good luck on your decession.

btw2 Another reason I got the double is cause eventually when I get too old or just plain outta shape I can always convert to a triple or get a compact crank like the one FSA makes and keep the double and still get all the gears that a triple has...

:eek:
I have one word for you:
MONTANA
I Have another word for you:
Virginia ;)

Definatly get a double, at first I was sceptical because of all the hills where I live, not many flats actually. But my legs soon learned and theres nothing that a 39/12-25 cant handle. If you unsure go for a 27.

I sill say go with the double. With today's 10 sp cassettes you can have a reasonably tight range of cogs and include one monster bail out cog.

I bought a triple before I ever had any intention of racing. Now I am "stuck" with it. However, it really isn't a problem. I know that I won't be using the inner chainring during a race, so I set the lower-limit screw to lock out the lowest gears before a race so I don't accidentally overshift. If I ever get a second bike just for racing, I'd go with a double.

I bought a triple before I ever had any intention of racing. Now I am "stuck" with it.

105 double cranks with BB are only $79.

ok just one more question....how about a 39 chainring and a 23 cog. the bike i want comes with this setup. i know i can always get a new cassette or a new crank so its not a huge deal. i am just wondering.

If it's not a huge deal for you to change cranks, get a double. If a 39/23 is not low enough, get a 12-27 cassette. If that's still not low enough, you could get a triple, or you could look into getting a compact double. I use an old MTB crank on one of my road bikes outfitted with 34x50 chainrings. 34/27 is pretty dang low - as low as a 30/24 so a triple with 12-27 would give you only one lower gear than 34x50 double with 12-27.

If it's not a huge deal for you to change cranks, get a double. If a 39/23 is not low enough, get a 12-27 cassette. If that's still not low enough, you could get a triple, or you could look into getting a compact double. I use an old MTB crank on one of my road bikes outfitted with 34x50 chainrings. 34/27 is pretty dang low - as low as a 30/24 so a triple with 12-27 would give you only one lower gear than 34x50 double with 12-27.

Another (similar) option is to get the double 53-39 and use a mountain bike 11-32 cassette with Deore derailleur. Your STI shifters will work with it and you get a low gear of 39/32.

105 double cranks with BB are only $79.
Sorry, it's Campy Record or nuthin'! :) Also, no sense changing anything unless I go Record 10-speed which would also mean new levers and rear derailleur. Like I said it works just fine and I am happy with it.

i dont know if i should get a double or a triple...my dad thinks i definately need a triple but im not so sure. this would be my first road bike. what do you think?

Howdy from Tucson!
Get the triple! My motto: "Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!" . . and will only cost you a few bucks more new; cheaper now than retrofiting later on!
Come ride in AZ and see what hills are like . . . 9,200 ft. One person's hill is another's mountain!
As for you "old folks" and "heavy weights"; I am 'only' 71, 135 lbs. Yes, I've used a triple for years and have logged over one quarter million miles on singles/tandems.
Listen to your dad, maybe he is not always right, but he sure is this time around!

I did my first century a couple weeks ago. There is a serious hill known as "the wall" that gets really nasty at mile 83. There were at LEAST 50 (no exageration) riders stopped along the last two miles of that climb. I ground past without stopping thanks to my triple. I was also passing pleanty of people that were still moving. I am totally convinced that I made the right decision by getting a triple. I weighed 194 that morning and am not the greatest climber.

The only reasons I can see not to are 1. you are a serious racer and can't stand the extra few grams. 2. You live on the flat and NEVER plan on riding anywhere else.

I will admit that the double looks prettier. I'll take the gears, thanks.

Would you buy a new car with a three speed?

Whoever said something about a triple not being necessary for racers, you might review your recent Vuelta history and Heras. It's becoming more of a tool that racers will use, hence the existence of DA and Record triple setups.

Right... as ImprezaDrvr mentioned, racers were using triple in the Vuelta. I find that I can handle all the hills I've encountered so far with a 39/53 double and 12-27 cassette. Maybe one of these days I will be faced with a hill that screams, "you idiot, you should have gotten a triple" but it hasn't happened yet so far.

And what if I did have a triple? I've been faced with that aforementioned hill while I was on my MTB when I was grinding away with my 22/34 combo on a 3-mile long non-switchbacked tight, rocky and twisty singletrack climb that shot up 2500 feet. There will always be that one hill that you're barred from no matter what gearing you have. I prefer the double on my roadbike because I found that it shifts better and am willing to trade off not having that front granny which I know I wouldn't use 98% of the time for smoother shifting. A triple or double or even a single is a matter of personal choice. Don't try and justify it either way to anyone else.

I always stay on the largest ring on the front and use 2->8 on the back. Just develop your muscles, get the double, save weight and trouble.

I was at one time also considering going to a Campy Racing Triple. Besides a little extra weight the huge advantage of having such a variety of gears to choose would be beneficial to anyone.. Using the gear calculator a 30x21 is equal to a 39x27.. Plus you could run a straight block from 12-21 cogset.. The best of both worlds..

Whoever said something about a triple not being necessary for racers, you might review your recent Vuelta history and Heras. It's becoming more of a tool that racers will use, hence the existence of DA and Record triple setups.

The day that those riders used a triple they were racing on a mountain with a maximum gradient of over 23%. That's a very rare exception.

Let's first consider that a triple chainring crankset, no matter who's riding it, has a greater range of terrain capabilities than does a double. Now, why wouldn't you want one? Weight? Cost? Most road bikes under $1400 dollars or so come withh a triple. So it probably isn't a money issue. If weights the issue, take the small ring off. Now you'll really get up some speed!! There is one somewhat minor drawback to the triple. The front derailluer is a bit more particular regards it's adjustments.
Some of the really elite mondo cyclists that post to this site will imply that a triple chainring says you're a weaker rider than if you had only a double chainring. If that's your concern, do the fixed gear thing and really show 'em how tuff you are!

There is one somewhat minor drawback to the triple. The front derailluer is a bit more particular regards it's adjustments.
!

Another minor drawback is that a long cage rear derailer is required (actually, if you run a "tight" cassette and are careful, you can get by with a short cage - I've done this). I don't like the extra chain "bounce" you get with long cage.

Triples also have a larger Q-factor - minor disadvantage for racing/time-trialing/triathlon.

we can argue over which we prefer forever (i prefer double), but really just get what you think is best for you. the only real advantage of having a triple is a little more options, but you have options on a double as well. remember, for your lowest gear-ratio, a double set-up with a low of 39-27 is about equivalant to a triple with a low of 30-21 (check out http://www.panix.com/~jbarrm/cycal/cycal.30f.html if you want to find out more about gear ratios). i have a 12-27 cassette on one of my bikes and i rarely ever use the 39-27 combo, even on long climbs.

so, it's all about trade-offs. do you want the option of being able to run a gear ratio lower than 39-27 and/or like having a close block of cogs (like in a 12-21 cassette) to always be able to find the "perfect" gear? or do you like the weight savings (granted, small), less complex/touchy shifting, and macho-ness of the double?

in either case, you WILL be able to tackle nearly any hill you come across. with the triple you just have the added peice of mind that you have bailout gears and with the double you have to have confidence that you can pedal through. i guess until you really start riding and know how you feel on a bike, you won't know.

keep in mind that i'm assuming you're getting a bike that's meant to go fast (fitness training and/or racing). if you see any loaded touring or other long distance riding in your future, definately look at that triple. now if you want my OPINION, i'd get a double. but that's what's good for me. do what's best for you. i certainly won't make fun of you when you're spinning by me up a killer hill.