Fifty Plus (50+) - Triple or Compact Double?

I know this question pops up on the road forum often enough, but I'd like the perspective of my fellow L-pals. I'd prefer input other than the ubiquitous HTFU (which I already know I need to do).

Looking at getting a Trek 2.3, now need to decide which crank set. This would be my first road bike coming from a Trek 7500 hybrid. I hear that climbing on the road bike will be easier (it is nearly 20 lbs. lighter), but don't know how that translates into actual riding.

No plan to race, just exercise and fun. Located in Kettle Moraine territory (if you can relate). Guess I'd describe it as rolling hills. Toughest climbs are typically ~1 mile at 5-7% (based on readouts from Garmin 305). About 30% of riding distance is on flat land, the remainder split between up or down hill (again based on readings from my 305).

I am used to spinning up the hills and do not consider myself a strong climber. However, last summer was my first of getting serious about riding, so I could get better.

What are your thoughts? Factors to consider?

Thanks!


Tech specs:

Trek 7500 (current): 28/38/48 - 11-32
Trek 2.3 Compact: 50/34 - 11-25
Trek 2.3 Triple: 50/39/30 - 12-27

I have a bike set up with each, i.e. my Ti GT has SRAM compact, with a 34 x 28 low gear. Fine for most climbs, esp. the kind you're talking about. So something similar is what I would recommend for your environment.

On the other hand, for really long days (double centuries) and esp. ones that have a ton of climbing after the 130 mi. point, I ride my Calfee which has a Shimano Ultegra triple set-up and a 30 x 27 low gear. However . . . for what you're doing, I think the compact would be fine.

If you go to CO, CA or UT where the climbs may be very steep AND last for an hour-plus, you should consider a triple.

Rick / OCRR

Here comes 30 shades of gray!

If you already "own" the hills that you will be riding on and the new bike will be 20 lbs lighter, I say get the compact double and tell the LBS you want a 12-27 cassette. That way your lowest gear is 34 inches vs the lowest gear on the triple of 30 inches. Now, if you intend to take vacations in the mountains get the triple since going back to a triple from a double is expensive.

I ride a compact 50/34 and switch the cassettes between a 12-27 for hills in Penna and a 12-23 for club rides and races.

...for what you're doing, I think the compact would be fine.

Agreed.

I have a Buenos Aires. It is a triple, 50/39/30 and 12-25. I live in Kentucky where we have lots of rollers and hills but no Alps D'Huez and such.

I think in retrospect I would have prefered a 50/34 and 12-27. I'm a weak climber, BTW.

I am used to Ultegra triple FD and Campy racing triple front shifting and is not very impressed with how my Crossbikes 105 FD shifts my compact double. (the chain derails far too often at the front).
I think given your kind of riding that a triple will be a better choice.

Based on your description I'd go with the compact but ask to get the 12-27 as Allegheny Jet has suggested. Either way, it will be a vastly different ride over your current hybrid.

I always enjoy these discussions. Takes me back a few years to when I was debating "the switch" from a triple. I went with a 50/34 compact as well and have mine set up to be able to ride on any type of road. I can use a 11-34 cassette which gives you a strong top end gear plus an easier gear on the bottom end than a typical triple.

I prefer the compact double with the broad range cassette. Because I like to retain the agressive downshifts on the front derailleur, I run a N-gear jump stop so the chain never derails. I believe that Stapfam has some serious input from his climb of the alps with a triple. He now has a compact double and can give a direct comparison for extreme hill work.

+1 Go with the compact double.

Right now, I am planning to convert a traditional double on my vintage bike from 42/52 to 36/50 (since I have the chainrings on hand). I would go 34/50 if I had a 34 chainring on hand, but I don't (and I am thrifty Bill).

My other bikes are all triples.... But they are a mountain bike and a touring bike.

I have a Campagnolo compact, 34-50 and 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,26.

This is missing about two more low gears from a triple. I need to stand to climb anything more than a 7% grade, and it would be nice to sit and spin a lower gear.

I like the 13-26 since I'm often in the 50-17,18,19 range for group rides (an 18 cog is unusual). At 90 rpm, that's 17.1 mph, 18.0, and 19.1 mph, so I find the exact gear I need. I max out on downhills in 50-13 at the low 30mph range, but I'm coasting at speeds faster than that, anyway.

But, in the 85-90 rpm range, this setup needs a front chainring shift somewhere between 15 and 17 mph. And then the back cogs need to be shifted over 3 positions. So, on somewhat slower rides, I'm shifting the front a lot. (It works pretty well on Campagnolo: to shift from 50-34 and up 3 in the back is just two thumb shifter pushes.)

With a triple, your normal cruising speeds might be in the middle of a chainring range, instead of right at the crossover point.

Try out this bike gear calculator (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.sherman/shift.html) for your own cadences and speeds. Plug in your gears, and see the Speed at X rpm table below.

I prefer the compact double with the broad range cassette. Because I like to retain the agressive downshifts on the front derailleur, I run a N-gear jump stop so the chain never derails. I believe that Stapfam has some serious input from his climb of the alps with a triple. He now has a compact double and can give a direct comparison for extreme hill work.

OK- went from a mountain bike to a road bike and as I have hills in my area- I got a triple. 52/42/30 and 11/28 rear cassette. I used to do road hills on the MTB and I used the 22/32 on the MTB frequently so I was worried about the higher gearing on the road bike. Those hills that were hard in 22/32 were just as hard with 30/28- but no harder. Went to the alpes and I was very happy with the road triple gearing as there was only one gear I used from early on in the 13 mile climb.

Only thing was that when I got back from that trip- I ordered a new bike. With a compact double. 50/34 and a 12/27 cassette. There is no way that a 34/27 is as low as 30/28 so I tackled all the hils in my area progressively. Started on the 8%ers- then the 10 and then the 12's. So far the gearing was comfortable so I then did the basket. 600ft climb over a mile with a nasty 20% section in it. Not a long 20% but it took out of the saddle to do it--Exactly the same as the road bike with the triple and it was no harder.

So no trouble climbing with a compact double. Only thing is I might be out of the saddle a bit more and the cadence may be a bit lower but the gearing on the compact is still suitable for the worst that my hills can throw at me. The only one that gets me is the long drag of a 2 mile 5% with a couple of 10% sections in it. I can never get comfortable on that one. But 600 ft climbs at between 8 and 16% are all doable.

The triple for your first road bike would give you confidence. But if you have some fitness-If you haven't it will come- then go with a compact. Just my view but I now have a triple fitted to the TCR for when I go back to the mountains- but only go into granny when it gets above 10% gradient. That middle ring is just too high compared to a compact double.

It has been my experience that I can climb OK with the 50/34 combined with a 12/25, but if I am planning to ride a longer distance with climbs I will change to the 12/27 (That little difference actually helps climbing.). Of course a triple allows for even easier climbing, but a double will normally shift easier and with fewer mishaps than a triple. I like for mechanical things to work correctly, and compact double does just that.

I reckon if I had experience with a compact, I'd be happy with it, but I'm a big fan of spinning low gears over long miles. My first real rides were long distance tours loaded down with camping gear--so a triple was a natural choice, and it's what I've stuck with over the years.

My guess, tntyz, is that you're going to be very happy with your nice, lighter road bike--with either a compact or a triple.

Either one will work but a triple is more versatile. I have a standard double on one road bike and a triple on the other road bike. Both shift well. I plan to change the double to a triple mostly to get a lower granny and for the versatility. With the triple I ride the middle ring most of the time and the big ring some of the time. I don't need the small ring very often but when I do need it I'm glad it's there. YMMV

I have road bikes with 3 configs, std (52/39 or 42), compact (50/34), triple (52/42/30).
my personal preference is single step cog ranges, not wide range, so I don;t have anything larger than a 23 on the compacts and triples and nothing larger than a 25 on a 10spd std double.

large elevation climbs aside, I ride all three and now still prefer either the compact or triple for 'rolling' (under 1K elevation climbing) terrain. I like the compact cause you can run the shifts all thru the large ring and then drop to the small ring and run those - no double shifts, since the gear ranges usually don;t overlap on a tight cog range. What I find is a 'hole', in the compact range, right around the mid-70s gear inches, which I like a lot just for floatin thru a ride. That mid-70's gear is good for anything 15 mph to 20, so I set it and forget it on many easy group rides. I'm always shifting more on the compact when near than gear size. On the Triple that gear is right there.

The triple requires some double shifting at some gearings, but you can't beat the variety of gears available. If I need a gear, I'll find it on the triple.

That said, a compact is 'simpler', for sure, especially when it comes to front 'trim'.

On the triple I've overcome the 'trim' issue by just not using a Brifter. I use a barcon on the front - a much simpler, more elegant solution than a Brifter for the front (would say the same for DT shifter for the front, simple, elegant, utterly workable and uncomplex).

If I had to pick one roadie setup, it would be a triple (can do both race and tour with a 52/42/30). And I do plan racing on the triple this season. Be just fine...

Thankfully I will NEVER, EVER have to make a decision on having just one rig....:love:

PardonEE Mois, but if I had to make that decision, and not having ridden a compact, I would get on one (borrow) for a good solid 1 - 2 hour ride and see how I liked it...

EDIT: Oh, one other thing... on some rigs, depending on the setup, when the front is on the inner 34 and also on the 2nd to smallest cog (or smallest) , the chain will rub on the large ring as it circulates, because the upper chain line is further 'down' and the chain angle is enough to cause the 'rub'. Only solution I've found is to shim out the chainline a mm or 2. check this before you lay down any dosh on a compact setup bike.

It sort of depends on how strong you are and how well you climb.

I tend to prefer to climb seated at a high RPM so I like low gears for long climbs. I have a bike a cobbled together years ago with pretty low gears on a triple and it works well on long climbs of 7% or so. By "long", I mean miles.

Here in central FL, I can get up everything which means 15% for short distances and half a mile of 7% with a 53/42 and a 12-24.

Now if you can get by with it, a compact would be nice. Compacts are more "in" for some reason. People always seem to look down on triples. But just having 2 rings to shift on makes for slightly faster shifts. But that is just my feeling.

However, I find that if I feel the desire to have some nice low gears, a triple is worth the fuss. It is nice to ride in a hilly area and have complete confidence that you have the gear for any situation.

I would think that a way to check would be to ride the steepest and longest hill you are likely to hit on any regular basis and figure out just how low of a gear you will want. Then sit down and figure out whether a triple or a compact double is more likely to deliver it for you.

Here comes 30 shades of gray!

If you already "own" the hills that you will be riding on and the new bike will be 20 lbs lighter, I say get the compact double and tell the LBS you want a 12-27 cassette. That way your lowest gear is 34 inches vs the lowest gear on the triple of 30 inches. Now, if you intend to take vacations in the mountains get the triple since going back to a triple from a double is expensive.

I ride a compact 50/34 and switch the cassettes between a 12-27 for hills in Penna and a 12-23 for club rides and races.

+1 and well stated. I offer the following. When i purchased my Trek 5.2 a couple of years ago, the Trek dealer set up demos anyway I wanted. I tried a couple of different gearing configurations and bikes. What I suggest is tell the dealer you are going to purchase the bike but are undecided about a triple / compact double. Request a demo on a double and a triple and check out lowest gear, impact of lighter bike, gearing range and etc. We are in recession and cash is king. I have to believe that there is a lot of inventory and riding different configurations should not be a problem. Get what works for you. Good luck.:)

Western NY State is all moraines too. Here in the city we're still on ancient lake bottom, but just a few miles outside the city limits, hills await.

I too started on a hybrid with a triple. When I switched to road bikes, I stayed with the triple. I found I like the single-tooth steps of a close-ratio cassette. The only way to have any sort of range with one of those, is a triple.

I've also found that on the flats around town, I seldom have to shift from the middle ring. With a compact, I'd be spinning out the small ring or mashing the big ring at my usual speeds. Just the way it works out for me. BTW, I'm a sit and spin climber.

I can live with a few grams of extra weight from the third ring, and I've taken the time to learn how to tune the FD and keep it in tune. I'll stick with triples for the foreseeable future.

EDIT:

For the record, my hybrid was a 48/38/28 with an 11-30 8-speed that I later swapped for a 13-23 8-speed.
One road bike is a 52/42/30 with the 13-23 8-speed I kept from the hybrid. The other road bike is a 52/39/30 with a 12-23 10-speed. I put a 12-27 on it when I'm going to be spending the day or more in the hills.

I was in a very similar situation when I went from my hybrid to a Specialized Roubaix Elite. I agonized and probably posted the same question and listend endlessly to different opinions. I think I decided on the triple but when I went to purchase, all they had was the double and at a great price.

They modified the hub as others have suggested and things have been great. I don't believe I ever use the lowest gear anyway and the climb over a never ending causeway that used to drain me on the hybrid is doable without using the gear I had fretted about so long.

Good luck. If you can do it on the hybrid don't sweat this decision, either will be fine.

The triple will give you a wider range of gears. Only you can judge if that much range is useful. There is no penalty except for the style points that you give up.

The triple will give you a wider range of gears. Only you can judge if that much range is useful. There is no penalty except for the style points that you give up.

Well, also weigh more and don't shift as well, but the style point loss is the most significant problem.

I have a 50/34 12-27 and climb a lot with it. Heck, our little neighborhood ride of 25 miles has over 1500 feet of climbing.

With climbing, that weight difference between your new and old bike will be HUGE. You will notice.

Have a look/read here. (http://www.veloweb.ca/randopages/randoratios.html)

Well, also weigh more and don't shift as well, but the style point loss is the most significant problem.

That's what people say when they are looking for reasons not to have a triple. The weight difference isn't enough to shake a stick at. Shifting difference, if any, isn't much, especially when compared to the wide chainring difference on a compact double.

That's what people say when they are looking for reasons not to have a triple. The weight difference isn't enough to shake a stick at. Shifting difference, if any, isn't much, especially when compared to the wide chainring difference on a compact double.

I agree. I went with a triple and the disadvantages are pretty much nil. On hindsight I think that for all of my local riding a CD would have been quite adequate though. I am toying with using my road bike and going with ultra light camping gear on a tour of skyline drive and the blue ridge parkway, rather than taking my touring bike. Also trips to Glacier, Rocky Mountain National Park, and other mountainous places are likely in the future. The triple will be well appreciated on any of those endeavors.

Your bottom gear on the 7500 is about 23 inches, on the new triple around 29 inches, and around 35 inches for the proposed new compact. Going to 12-27 gets to 33 inches.

If you now use the whole range of the 7500 gears, you'll probably notice the harder gears on the new bike, no matter what option you choose. If you never go below say a 30 inch gear (something like a 28 front and 24 rear), any of the new gears will work well.

On my road bike I've set it up with 13-29 and 53-39 in front. This gives me a bottom gear of 35 inches, which I find usually good for climbing in Michigan, and sometimes lower than I need (ask me about this again next September!!!). I usually think Wisconsin is hillier, at least around Madison.

I'm thinking of changing that bike to 50-34 and 12-27, but its a $$$ issue, too.

I'm converting one bike now from triple to compact, but that's mainly because it will be for Mrs. Road Fan, and she's accustomed to a compact.

Knees, knees, knees!

I was converted to tripleness back in the early 90's when I happened to get a hybrid for tooling around on trails. Pretty soon, I was choosing it over the road bike and I was deliberately looking for big hills to climb. It was such a revelation that the next road bike I got just had to have a triple. I've happily riding it for 11 years now.

The young and the trend followers can do what they want, but older knees need to be pampered. Ignore this if you're a flash in the pan living room cyclist, but consider it carefully if you intend to ride long into old age and climb hills you see just because they are there. Get many gears, starting as low as you can get, and learn to spin as much as you can so you are always pushing as lightly as you can to get the job done.

I haven't owned a hybrid since 1998, but I still ride a triple.

Been using the 105 triple on the TCR for a couple of weeks and previous to this had a compact double.

The previous triple I had was 52/42/30 and I rarely used the 52 unless it was on a down slope.It was just a bit too high. The compact double had 50/34 and I used that 50. It just seemed to suit my legs better. And up our hills I found that the 34 was still suitable.

My problem is that I will be going to the mountains again and 34/27 will not be low enough. So I got a triple to prepare for them. I got a Shimano 105 as this has the 50t top ring. Midddle is a 39 and granny a 30. The difference in the gearing on the 105 has surprised me. Wheras the 52/42/30 had a problem for me-The 50/39/30 suits me a lot better. The 50 is not too high- the step down to the 39 is perfect and the change from the 39 to the 30 is hardly noticable. NO big jumps between the gears.

So there are triples and there are triples. But for my normal riding round my local hills- I still prefer the compact. I do use granny on the triple and that is only for one reason- That 39 is just a bit too high so the granny has to be used. The 34t on a compact is low enough for me not to need any lower.

So for me a Triple is a winner- But so is a double compact.

My Campy triple has a 50 tooth large. A 52 has always been useless for me, but a 50 is just right for those times when I can go faster, like slightly downhill sections, wind behind my back, or just when I want to go fast. A triple doesn't have to use a 52. If you are comparing doubles with triples, make sure you are comparing the same gears. In my opinion, a 50 large ring is a heck of a lot more useful than the more standard 52. The small ring should be smaller than a 30, but a 30 is fine if you're not touring with bags. Gears depend on the situation and your needs. There's no universal answer. If you're going to be using a triple though, I would do it on a touring or a real sport touring frame that has longer chainstays (for the longer chainline). It doesn't make sense to try a triple on a tight geometry racing bike and then complain about problems. On such bikes, a compact double probably IS better (I've never tried it myself).

On a side note, people think way too much about what they need, what they could upgrade, etc. Just ride the bike you have with what it has on it. Nothing makes that much difference for most every day riding.

Gears depend on the situation and your needs. There's no universal answer.

We have a BINGO! Gearing questions can only be answered by the asker.

We have a BINGO! Gearing questions can only be answered by the asker.

Yes, and to the extent that the asker is answering from an informed position, the happier he or she will be with the choice. Now, as to the wisdom of seeking and informed position in the 60+ forum.... well, that a completely different kettle of fish.

We have a BINGO! Gearing questions can only be answered by the asker.

Agreed, especially since none of you have volunteered to pay for it! ;)

I appreciate all of the input so far. I wanted your thoughts on what factors to consider and that helps.

The added weight of the triple doesn't make any difference to me since I have at least a few grams of fat to lose anyway. More concerned about comments related to poor shifting performance.

I have a hybrid today with a triple and seldom experienced problems shifting. Am I to understand that moving up significantly in componentry (Shimano Nexave to 105) could actually lead to poorer shifting performance?

Considering LongFemur's philosophy, I would want to be prepared to build up a very wide range system if and when its needed, and the new bike with the triple gets you the most flexibility as delivered. Get the new bike with the triple.

Considering LongFemur's philosophy, I would want to be prepared to build up a very wide range system if and when its needed, and the new bike with the triple gets you the most flexibility as delivered. Get the new bike with the triple.

+1 I tend to agree with that... I did not know a 50 tooth triple Shimano is available... that could be nice!

Agreed, especially since none of you have volunteered to pay for it! ;)

I appreciate all of the input so far. I wanted your thoughts on what factors to consider and that helps.

The added weight of the triple doesn't make any difference to me since I have at least a few grams of fat to lose anyway. More concerned about comments related to poor shifting performance.

I have a hybrid today with a triple and seldom experienced problems shifting. Am I to understand that moving up significantly in componentry (Shimano Nexave to 105) could actually lead to poorer shifting performance?

I don't see where moving up will lead to shifting problems. Moving to a compact will not lead to shfting problems. Well setup triples will not usually lead to shifting problems.

The triple to Compact double decision should revolve around whether you, the rider, are going to get a useful range of gears that suits your needs.

I recomend that you try to get a test ride on a bike somewhat like yours with both systems.

I have a hybrid today with a triple and seldom experienced problems shifting. Am I to understand that moving up significantly in componentry (Shimano Nexave to 105) could actually lead to poorer shifting performance?

Not in my experience. STI triples can take some finess to set up initially. Once set up, however, they're quite reliable. If you go to the Park Tool website you'll find several steps for setting up an STI triple. It's important to do the steps in order because each one affects the subsequent steps.

I always like this "issue"...something the old codgers sitting around the stove at the LBS can chew on eternally. I'm coming back from a serious knee injury (I'm the rash old guy who stepped in a gopher hole playing socker with kids). That granny has come in handy almost daily as I nurse the knee!) Otherwise, it has been there once in a while at the end of long rides with a long, steep frickin' climb to go and not much in the tank. My "unstylish" 26/36/48 with 12x25 gives me close-set ratios and a good low. Admittedly, I freewheel on some descents with a limited high of 106". The middle ring range is very self contained for most cruising or rolling hills. Using Centaur shifters and Campy cables with a J-tek Shiftmate with a 105 rd has proven durable with no major adjustments in nearly two years and 7500 miles. Shifting front and rear always works, under load or not, and thrown chains have happened maybe twice.

I agree with Longfemur that we can and do perseverate on equipment....more for the fun of perseverating than for the absolute need on the road.

***I also have a 52/39 12x25 that does look better and shifts faster and is just fine for moderate terrain. Actually, as Cyclezen indicates.....having different styles of bike is fun, useful, and refreshing.

I went with a compact and now find that my aging body can no longer fly up the NorCal hills like it used to. To switch will cost near $700 in parts alone so I am going with a MTB rear cassett. Wish I went with a triple, nothing to lose, a little more complex shifting pattern and the ability to climb the big hills any time especially after several hours in the saddle.

A 'compact double' - any double for that matter, this 'compact' nonsense is just marketing hype, just like most of the reasons for not buying a triple, but a double ring set up can not give you the range of a triple without sacrificing the closeness of the ratios, both between the rings and between the rear cogs.

The question is, does this matter?

It depends on your riding. Nothing else ... though the marketing men seem to imagine otherwise.

If I lived on the Adelaide Plains, I could get away with the most racing orientated bike I could find. Hell, most of my riding on the plains is done on my fixed gear bike - that's right only ONE gear and thanks to careful ratio choice and the ability to spin, never feel the need for another gear.

But I don't live on the plains, I live in the Adelaide Hills and around here, it's all rolling country with short, steep hills. I can and do ride the fixed gear around here but it's easier on my geared bike where I have a 50 tooth large ring and a 39 tooth middle. This gives me a nice shift between the rings with no need to muck about with the rear shifter on the change - its effectively a two ratio shift. The rear cassette has 9 cogs and, to enable me to get up and down the hills around here, I've gone with an 11-32 spread (11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 32) - close at the top end and getting wider as you get into the pulling gears. As my legs continue to get stronger, I may reduce that range and go for a closer set of ratios ... but I may not, we'll see in a few thousand kms when I've worn this cassette out.

What that setup does NOT do, is get me up the hill's face, from the plains up into the rolling country. To do that, I have a choice of two hills, one 2.5km long, the other 3.2 km long, and both of them steep enough to make my car take a deep breath when tackling them - it takes me around a quarter of an hour to climb them which is too long to be standing and grunting at low cadence on the pedals. So I have a 26 tooth granny ring. Yes, when riding the 26-32 and spinning at 90, my road speed is about 8km/hr, but I can climb anything with that.

You can match my range of gears with a double ring, but you do so at the expense of a huge leap between chain rings and big jumps between the cogs (some bloke tried to talk me into a compact double once and he worked the numbers), neither of which I find desirable. Add to that, the 39 tooth middle ring is nearly ideal for the suburban running I do, I really only need to use the big ring for fast work ... such as going DOWN those big hills :D Reducing that 39 to go for a 'double' set up would mean more changes onto the big ring and, because the gap between the rings would be increased, this would necessitate changes at the rear everytime I changed at the front.

The most my granny is ever used is about 3km on any ride, but that happens everytime I ride out my local area. I could slog my way up those hills on something with higher gearing, but as it is, they're reduced to just another obstacle to get over, nothing more, and I like it that way.

So, for me, a double ring set up would be daft. Does the weight of an extra chain ring bother me? No and I find that particular argument absurd in the extreme. Do I suffer from awkward shifting? She leaps between the middle and the top ring in an instant. The shift from granny to middle is slower and needs the lever to be held across but that's because I have a 14 tooth leap there ... oh hang on, that's what a lot of 'compact doubles' have, something that makes me wonder about the claims of 'better shifting on a compact double'. The change from middle to granny is done in an instant.

Will I do away with my granny?
Maybe one day when I'm a lot lighter and a lot stronger ... but by then I'll be a lot older so maybe not. I will reconsider the range on the rear cassette, but only to get some closer ratios across the cassette, but maybe not. There's a good chance I won't bother to change the 'standard' 30 tooth granny next time I'm buying bits, but maybe I will.

You fit the gears to suit yourself and the riding you do. The gearing I have would be wasted on a lot of you ... I know a bloke in Perth who spends much of his time in fully loaded touring mode and he thinks my gearing is conservative. It all depends on where you're dragging your tired old body.

Sadly though, too many people consider this whole argument to be about how racey or macho you are or something. Well consider this. A few years back, I was sitting up in the middle of the night watching a live feed of the Tour de France. They were heading up one of those monster Alps and Phil Ligget was talking about the group of sprinters at the back of the field, just trying to survive on the Alps. He then mentioned that some used triple ring setups on those days, just to survive the climbs. A certain Robbie McEwin was one mentioned by name, and I don't care what country you're from, you don't get any racier than Robbie.

Fit whatever gearing you need. If you need a triple, fit the thing. If you don't need it, don't fit it. Or is that thinking too simplistic?

Richard

Or is that thinking too simplistic? Richard

:thumb: Actually, simple is good and getting better in a cycling world that often seems over-hyped and over-engineered for many of us. So is individualism and a not-self-conscious approach to cycling where you make it what YOU want it to be and follow your own goals & needs. One of the pleasures of being older is doing it your own way!

I Wish I went with a triple, nothing to lose, a little more complex shifting pattern.

That's another thing I hear about triples that doesn't make any sense to me. "More complex shifting pattern" made sense back when we only had 5 or 6 cogs on the back and we had to stretch every combination we could to keep the steps between gears manageable. Some riders even used to print out all the gear inch ratios on a piece of paper and tape it to their handlebar.

With 8 or 10 cogs on the back that's changed. I ride the triple on my tandem like it has 3 gear ranges: One for tailwinds and downhill, one for the flats, and one for steep uphills. What's complex about that?

^^^^^
Same way I ride my hybrid. I figure I have 3 ranges of about 4-6 gears each and seldom do frequent shifts on the front.

Thanks for all the help everyone! My mind is made up. I'm going with the comfort and flexibility that a triple offers.