Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Do I need a third chain ring on a road bike???

I have been reading posts on here for a few months now but this is my first post. I am 6 ft, 248 lbs and am thinking of getting a true road bike. My only road bike experience is on a Schwinn Continental which was far from being road worthy. I have been tooling around on a Giant Suede; which is fun but very upright, and recently got me a Trek 4300. I am amazed by how much body position makes a difference as far as speed! :thumb: Just dropping down a bit with the mountain bike has shaved time off of previous routes I have done.

Anyway... The area around my house has some good hills for Northern Indiana since I'm along a creek. Also there is another area that has good hills that most road bikes ride on, which is a "short" bike ride away. I am so-so with hills depending on how long I have been riding or what gear im in. So with keeping all that in mind, should I be looking at road bikes with a third chain ring? I know there will be gear over lap but I wanted some opinions from other Clydes out there. Please give me some feedback about the third chain ring on a road bike! Many thanks!

It's a very personal thing... I would not think of riding without a triple but I have many friends who love their compact doubles. It really doesn't depend on whether or not you have hills... the area around my house is plenty hilly... it depends on how you ride and what you are looking for in a bike and its performance.

Whatever you do, test ride bikes - I would bet its hard to find a triple in a store... most now only carry compact doubles. A triple will give you lower and higher gears but again, many people swear by the compacts. Do some research before you make a decision.

Ride your current bike on the steepest hills you expect to encounter and see what the lowest gear is that you need to make it up. Compare that to the lowest on any bike you look at. You can deal with losing a gear or two as the road bike will be a bit lighter and more efficient but if you need something significantly lower than you can find on a compact double, I'd go with a triple.

Do you *need* one? I dunno. Technically, you really only need one gear, front and back.

But I like triples.

Keep in mind, it's not just the highest and lowest gears in the range you need to be concerned about. A triple offers better spacing between gears along with a straighter chainline in different gear ranges.

The weight penalty is minimal and I find the difference in shifting quality between a double and triple to be negligible at best.

You really don't need a triple (eg that third chain ring). Whether you want one or not is a different question, but you can get the same gears out of a double without having to do as much maintenance ... and without annoyances like the bike refusing to shift in the front, or shifting when you haven't asked it to. What a triple gets you compared to a double isn't an easier time climbing hills, it's a smoother gradient from your lowest to your highest gear.

Now, if you're new to road bikes, and you're having trouble climbing hills, I'd say what needs to improve is the engine, not the drive train.

I'd recommend a triple, personally. Yes, there's lots of overlap. Yes, it is possible to get a similar range with a compact and some big sprockets at the back. But the triple allows you to have the very low gears and keep fairly close ratios because you don't need the big steps between sprockets on the rear cassette.

You may rarely use the smallest chainring. But it's very nice to have it when you're struggling or in steeper territory than you're used to. And there is really very little downside.

I've heard that compact doubles make a triple unnecessary. I've never ridden one, so I can't say. I can say that I do love the triple crank I have on my (oldish - mid/late 1990s) road bike.

... and without annoyances like the bike refusing to shift in the front, or shifting when you haven't asked it to.

Someone needs a new mechanic.:D

I've got 5 triples and 2 doubles in our stable and never have I had this problem. Triples work very well when properly adjusted. The problems you mention have to do with the mechanic not the triple itself.

A double makes the front derailleur easier to set up but a decent mechanic wil have no problem setting up a triple. Heck, I've had shop mechanics totally thrash my double.:D

A Compact double can provide just as large a range (high and low) as a road triple. However, it does result in slightly larger changes between gears. The bike Mrs. Fred got for Christmas has a compact double as a, "suck it and see" trial. She reports no more effort required on even the steepest of our road climbs. Those are probably around 14%. I don't take her up the 20% West Wall (Rd.). If I did, she might not ever ride with me again. Anyhow, the one thing she does report, is that she uses the left shifter/front der. far more than she did on the triple. It seems that at the speeds she frequently rides, she finds herself constantly on the verge of cross chaining. Either large ring/ lare cog or small ring/small cog, to find the correct gear ration. More so than the triple, where she spent the majority of her time in the middle ring and the middle of the cogs.

It's really flat in central Illinois so I went with a compact double on the roadbike. While making the decision I went out and rode on the hilliest place I could find around here. I was able to get up the hill in the middle ring. It was a 38 front with a 25 rear. The compact double was a 34 front with a 28 rear so it's actually has a little lower gearing than using the middle chainring. I'd try an experiment such as this to see what you need.

The trade-offs IMO are fewer models are available with a triple. The chainline with a double is better in the big ring but neither ring is as good as the middle chainring in a triple. I've heard that triples are touchier on derailleur adjustments. The shifts on compact doubles are slower as you're jumping up 16 teeth instead of 10 and you have to shift the rear more because of that.

Ride some doubles and see if they work.

Yup, ride both and see what you like. We can't tell you what you "need" nor can we tell you what you "want". We can only tell you what we like. I switched from a triple (Trek 7300) to a compact double (Trek Madone) last summer and haven't looked back. To be honest, after I'd ridden the 7300 for a few months and gotten some legs under me, I never used the small ring anyway. But everybody is different. :)

I have been reading posts on here for a few months now but this is my first post. I am 6 ft, 248 lbs and am thinking of getting a true road bike. My only road bike experience is on a Schwinn Continental which was far from being road worthy. I have been tooling around on a Giant Suede; which is fun but very upright, and recently got me a Trek 4300. I am amazed by how much body position makes a difference as far as speed! :thumb: Just dropping down a bit with the mountain bike has shaved time off of previous routes I have done.

Anyway... The area around my house has some good hills for Northern Indiana since I'm along a creek. Also there is another area that has good hills that most road bikes ride on, which is a "short" bike ride away. I am so-so with hills depending on how long I have been riding or what gear im in. So with keeping all that in mind, should I be looking at road bikes with a third chain ring? I know there will be gear over lap but I wanted some opinions from other Clydes out there. Please give me some feedback about the third chain ring on a road bike! Many thanks!

It's a preference thing...I have bikes that I've swapped back and forth between triples and compacts...these days it seems I've settled on triples. I just like the gearing better, like the 39/40 middle chainring for climbing, but also like the bailout option of the 30 being next to it. The gear spread of a compact double works, but its' hardly inspiring. Afterall, what's the negative of a triple...weight? Jeez, if I was 150lb on a 15lb bilke I guess I would be worried.

Anyhow, the one thing she does report, is that she uses the left shifter/front der. far more than she did on the triple. It seems that at the speeds she frequently rides, she finds herself constantly on the verge of cross chaining. Either large ring/ lare cog or small ring/small cog, to find the correct gear ration. More so than the triple, where she spent the majority of her time in the middle ring and the middle of the cogs.

This accords with my experience. I ride a compact double on my road bikes, and it is true that finding the "right" gear isn't as easy as with a triple. I frequently change front and rear simultaneously, up at the front and down at the back, or vice versa, to find just the correct incremental change.

I think it's because of the big drop from 50 to 34 on the chainrings. On one bike I have an FSA crank with a 50/36, and that seems better.

Someone needs a new mechanic.:D

A lot of people do. The people who post in this forum regularly ... we really like bikes. We treat ours well, keep them in good working condition, and get a lot back out of them for it. But most people don't take such good care of their bikes. I've got a friend, for example, who occasionally joins me on rides, with his Marin Muir Woods. He's got a triple chain ring, and he's never shifted it. Once we traded bikes for a mile during a ride, and I couldn't get his bike to shift out of the middle ring. A lot of people don't maintain their bikes all that well, and triples, because they have smaller tolerances, will go out of tune more quickly. That's the biggest reason I recommend doubles to people; things have to be really bad before you can't shift between two rings.

If somebody's going to keep their drive train in good mechanical shape, and wants the smaller gaps between gears, I'd recommend thinking about a triple.

SF - I respect your opinion. My experience is more like Beanz - no troubles with triples at all. And I can't even tell you the last time I adjusted my front derailer on my road bike.

Anyway... The area around my house has some good hills for Northern Indiana since I'm along a creek. Also there is another area that has good hills that most road bikes ride on, which is a "short" bike ride away. I am so-so with hills depending on how long I have been riding or what gear im in. So with keeping all that in mind, should I be looking at road bikes with a third chain ring? I know there will be gear over lap but I wanted some opinions from other Clydes out there. Please give me some feedback about the third chain ring on a road bike! Many thanks!

Figure out what your current setup is, rear cassette and front chain rings, then go ride the the hills in your area and see how it goes.

Make a note of the gears that you used and compare those to a compact or a triple crankset on a prospective road bike. That should give you a reasonable idea with respect to gearing.

I run a triple with a 12-23. The smallblock makes for better/more physically pleasing flatland riding, I feel.

Also a long-enough 971 chain so I can do big/big without a second thought.

I imagine a compact would be a bit busy, perhaps like playing pinball?

6', 240.

I have a triple on my road bike. I don't use it too often, but when I do need it, I'm glad I have it. Like here:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/7078935165_e39843d858_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/)
Easter Hill Country Tour 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/) by Yo Spiff (http://www.flickr.com/people/yospiff/), on Flickr

I have triples on my cross commuter and my road bike. I like having the granny gear even though I don't use it a lot...mainly on one very steep mile long climb on my commute, but also some other serious hills in the area. It doesn't "cost" you anything to have one, so if you're concerned, go for it and know that it's there if you need it.

Nothing wrong with a triple. If you are on the fence between compact and triple, I would go triple becase the cost of switching to the other is cheaper: you can use a triple left shifter on a double, but not vise versa. Just need a new crank and FD.

I tried a 9-speed compact and didn't like it. But I'm looking at a new bike that has a PF30 bottom bracket and there are almost no BB30 triples made, so maybe with 10-sp and some custom gears I can get a set up I'm happy with. But without the wide range of a triple I would never know what my practical gear range is!

Triple? I'm waiting for the Shimano electronic quadruple!!!

I have both a triple and a compact. Had to "fight" with the shop to get the triple. He wanted to sell me a compact. My money ... I won. About a year later I purchased another bike with a standard at a steal of a price and swapped the crank to a compact within a few weeks. The compact is my go to bike when the gradients are less than an 5-6% (average). There will be those inevitable 8-10% ramps, but the compact handles the mid-gradients just fine. The triple is my "climbing bike", and I'll use it when I expect gradients averaging more than 6-7%. Yes, I do use the granny gear often. I don't miss the loss of the top end speed on the compact. I can go fast enough with the 50/12 or 50/11.

As mentioned, ride both and see what you like. If you car considering SRAM, their Apex setup can have lower gearing than a triple, Or, some people ride with a mountain bike rear dérailleur and cluster to get that extra low gearing.

I'd be surprised if you had much need for the triple in Northern Indiana, to be honest. Southern Indiana, absolutely though. I'm not too far away and I'd be happy to drive up and let you ride my compact double on those roads, but I'm 6'5" and my bike is a 60CM. I've also got Speedplays on it and have no idea where the platform pedals I took off are.

Seems to me that LBS stock the gearing that's most appropriate / most popular for the rides the customers will be riding and for the physical condition of the cyclist.

My LBS is willing to special order bikes with the gearing I prefer. I recently did so to get a 53/39 front, 11-28 back on a bike that was only stocked with a 50/34 front, 12-30 back using lesser quality components than what I wanted.

Definition of "pretty good hills" is highly subjective. %grade of steepest hills and how long it takes to climb them; and the total feet of climbing per x miles is easier to understand.

Your climbing style will also influence which drivetrain you will be happiest with. To me, spinning in a very low gear means I'll just slow down until I tip over while my heart rate soars and I overheat. I do better when I can get a good steady rhythm going cadence 50-60.

I like compacts. Just a personal choice. A 50x34 in the front, and 11-28 (9-speed) in the rear gives me plenty of granny gear.

AND...I'm just lazy about shifting. Unless I'm on a prolonged climb, I usually just stay in the big chainring no matter what.

Don't have a road bike, but the smallest ring at the front on my MTB only ever gets used offroad on really steep gradients. If I'm climbing on the road I'll stay on the largest chain ring and just shift down a few at the back. If it gets really steep I'll shift to the middle chain ring/milddle rear. I've never had a use for the smallest cog on the road, I'd be spinning at super speeds for very little return.

Now, when I'm on the other bike with 25kg of kid on the back climbing the steep little hill back to my house... then that little chain ring comes in handy.

I have a triple on my road bike. I don't use it too often, but when I do need it, I'm glad I have it. Like here:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/7078935165_e39843d858_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/)
Easter Hill Country Tour 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/) by Yo Spiff (http://www.flickr.com/people/yospiff/), on Flickr

Cool Pic....

If it were me, I'd want a triple. Are you always going to be riding in northern Indiana? A bike can last a long time, and your interest (and range) can expand over that time. You may go off on a wild tear and decide to try bicycling in some mountains with steep hills. If that happens, you'll be happy to use the triple. Or you may decide to join a fast group ride -- unless they're jerks (and unworthy of your company), nobody will say much about a triple, but you'll be happy to have the fine-tuned gear for the pace. I think a triple keeps your options open. The worst you lose is carrying an extra quarter water bottle of weight, or style points. And I could care less about the style points.

As said it all depends on terrain and fitness level. I have a double compact and standard and in my area I prefer the standard, if you train and loose the weight there is nothing you couldn't climb with a compact. I have to go out of my way to do a ride without hitting hills that go above 10%.

I run a triple with a 12-23.

Also a long-enough 971 chain so I can do big/big without a second thought.

Might want to second think that second thought, as big to big is bad for chain wear no matter how long the chain is. The length is not the issue, angle of the chain line is.:50:

I struggled with this when I bought my Roubaix. I am about the same height and weight as you and have some hills around the area. I went with the compact double. There are a few hills I like to climb that make me wish I had went with the triple. My commuter has a triple and I just customized it. When the gears and chain wear out on the roubaix I will probably change it to a triple. I don't need it that often but there are a lot of times I wished I had it. Since you are just starting and your fitness level is probably low I would recommend the triple. But either one will do and you will like it a lot compared to what you currently have.

It's all about what *YOU* need and want from a bike. What hills do you have to climb?
I'd go with the advice from CACycling in post #3, Jethro56 in #10 and Seve in #16. Ride what you have on the steepest hills you have and compare what you have now and what you can get using Sheldon Browns gear calculator

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Example would be a 30 on the front and a 28 on the back - that's a 2.1 Ratio. With a Compact 34 in the front and a 32 in the back (SRAM Apex) you could also have a 2.1. As our esteemed collegue Jethro56 and others pooint out the difference is the jump in the ratios. The triple will be less of a change allowing you to keep whatever cadence you want easier.

I know when I was 70 lbs ago I would have never(!) made the ride below on anything but my mountain bike which has a triple 28/38/48 with a 34 on the back and I would have had to stop at least once.

http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/83051645

It's a no stop ride on my road bike with a compact now despite a Cat3 climb. Another ride I do often has 1 Cat4 and 5 Cat5 climbs - 2047' in 42 miles.

To sum it up... test as many bikes in as many configurations as you can. Buy what *YOU* will ride. If you don't like it I can only guarantee that you won't ride it.

I would go for a compact double. There's very few situations where you "need" a triple. I found myself relying on the triple way too much during climbs even when I didn't need to. I noticed that a lot of riders with triples can't or won't stand when they climb because they rely on the granny gear to stay seated and end up being a much weaker climber.

I noticed that a lot of riders with triples can't or won't stand when they climb because they rely on the granny gear to stay seated and end up being a much weaker climber.

That's too funny! ....and you ride a compact?:rolleyes:

Real men ride standard doubles. :innocent:

Real men ride standard doubles.

You got that straight!

39/53 X 12/25 here. 252lbs/115kg, <10%=no problems, >14%=**** this is work, 20%=absolute max before stalling at top of pedal strokes and the steepest thing we've got around these parts.

You don't need no sticking triple! Take a concrete pill and HTFU. You are CLYDE (or ATHENA)! Stand up on those pedals. Hear the spindles moan before you. Listen to the spokes sing out as you climb that incline. The ever increasing pitch of that chain is your motivation. Pull through those pedal stokes. Scrape and pull with those feet!

If the doctor has cleared you for take off, have no fear. You will not suffer a coronary event. You might think otherwise and your chest and lungs,....and legs may all agree. But fear not, for you are CLYDE (or ATHENA) and you are powerful.

Now. With that out of the way. If you're not having fun and enjoying your bike, you probably won't come back to it. So, if a compact double or triple keep it fun for you. Get it.

39/53 X 12/25 here.

Of course I am kidding about the double although I do use one on timed events on mountain climbs. I just get a kick out of those that think the triple is for sissies.

This is the truth, 2 past clyde forum members have razzed me in the past about using a triple on training rides. "Dude, you're using a triple? bwahahahaha!":eek:

If I named them you could ask how far behind me they finished on the events!:roflmao2:


Although I believe riders should use what they like, I don't see much of a difference. FTR, Gina has climbed GMR (8 miles /6%/2300ft) on a standard double (28 cog).:D

10,000ft on a standard double (53/39-12/25)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/gulpxtreme/MountainShots/3623998990_b7be410168.jpg


12,000ft on same bike
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/gulpxtreme/ba6.jpg

The bike, standard double (39/25)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/gulpxtreme/111010C.jpg

If you are riding your Trek in the big chainring, that is the same as the middle of a road triple or the small of a standard road double. If you need to drop the the middle ring of your trek on road rides, you will need either a compact double or a triple.

Discovered something interesting about the granny ring today. Coming down the bike path after work this old dude was walking his bike up a small incline. Since I didn't want to actually get off the bike I just shifted right down and inched my way up and past. Almost tipped over backward from the amount of torque that thing delivers. Lesson to self, don't deliver maximum power on steep slope with the small chain ring.

I have one bike with a standard double and very large cassette and another with a triple. I can adjust to either and enjoy riding it. However, when I get near the eastern slope of the Sierra, I like the extra gear selection and my very low granny on the triple. If you think you might ever take a cycling vacation to a more mountainous area, you may find the triple offers slightly better gear selection and is a bit easier on your knees.

It seemed to me when I was shopping for bikes that most doubles, even compact doubles, had at best a 10 speed 11-28 rear cog. SRAM Apex is 11-32 I believe, but lots of people with doubles end up using mountain bike derailers to get a lower gear. So I'm not real sure why everyone here keeps telling you that compact doubles are just as good for hills. You will most likely have a lower "granny gear" with a triple unless you can find a compact double with 11-32 rear cog. I switched from a triple to a compact double with 11-28 and definitely noticed my lowest gear is not as low. If you are a particularly strong rider, this might not be an issue as 34-28 is a pretty low gear. But if you struggle in the hills you may want to take that into consideration.

After reading this whole thread, I will offer my take on this subject and put it in Clydesdale terms and road biking. I do some cycle touring and also have some extra pounds as does the OP. You can be in fairly good shape (cardio and strength wise) and be heavier. I have no clue to the OP’s overall condition but let’s assume he is ok physical condition. The bottom line is weight is weight and having 60 extra pounds on the bike is equivalent to most fully loaded touring bikes with a 160 – 170 pound rider. That touring rider wouldn’t consider not having a triple and not having a low granny range hauling a 50 pound pack. My above math is being conservative in fact. That’s the first point in favor of a triple IMO.

The second for me is the newer cassettes with 9 and 10 speeds offer amazing range choices across them. They also present a problem of cross chaining with a triple so I spent a lot of time figuring out what worked best for me. I don’t do club rides and to me a bike is a tool to get someplace on and enjoy the sport of riding and improve my health in the process. Being heavier and wanting a bike built to be bulletproof I started off with a tour bike (triple) after trying lots of other things. I changed both chain rings and cassettes in the process of fitting the gears to my ride style. What I found much to my surprise about the triple wasn’t the low range improvement (I knew I would get that). What I ended up working the hardest to get was a middle chain ring and cassette combination that that gave me the ability to not have to do endless front shifts. 80% of my riding I can do by very easy rear shifts sequentially shifting. What I then did was go super low with the granny and gave myself another whole range of 6 cogs on the cassette for a hill climbing around here that are kind of rolling climbs (some parts steep some almost level). The large chain ring was sized like a road bike and gives me two tall gears that I hardly use except staying warm on down hills instead of coasting. The rest are over laps with the center but I worked them out to be half step overlaps. I don’t do the half step shifts as routine but there are lots of times riding in the flat a half step fits the need.

For me the biggest reason I like the triple is for the center chain ring and not having to make the harder front shifts. Keep in mind the rear shifts even on a spaced out cassette are relatively small steps and are shifted on the bottom of the chain line that isn’t under tension when under power. The front shifts are greater steps and off the top of the chain line. I have one hard shift that’s the middle to granny and the reason I’m not a big fan of the mega-gear thing on the cassette. Once I get into the granny I don’t want to have to shift back up to the center for fear of spinning myself out with a slight change in the incline.

Those are my thoughts on the triple vs compact double. If I was 30 years younger and 50 pounds lighter with a totally different strength to weight ratio I had then I might view it totally different. For me spinning with lower torque letting my heart do the work keeps me going longer up a hill. It’s not like I don’t have the exact same gears if I do want to stand up and mash. Triple with 9 or 10 cassette best of both worlds.

Bud16415, that's an excellent post. Speaking as another cycle tourist, I think you have thought this through very intelligently, and you're absolutely right. Stick another fifty pounds on my load, which I do when going on a long tour, and settling for a compact double would be out of the question.

Bud16415, that's an excellent post. Speaking as another cycle tourist, I think you have thought this through very intelligently, and you're absolutely right. Stick another fifty pounds on my load, which I do when going on a long tour, and settling for a compact double would be out of the question.




Thanks chasm54

I have several road bikes mostly vintage tall gear wonders of the 70’s I wished I could have had back then and wonder why I have them now. My one true road bike I would consider getting on and seriously riding is an older Cannondale that when I found it had a fairly tall double on it and I swapped it out for my version of a compact double that gave me some lower gears to climb with. It is as light as a feather and fast for me.

When I bought the touring bike that came with a road triple in the front and I guess their thought in building it the cassette made it touring gears by using a wider spaced 11-32 cassette. I had no intention to use the heavier bike except build it up as a cargo hauler to tour on. For me it wasn’t geared low enough and I started with granny changes, then tried a mountain crank, then a different cassette, then put the road crank back on then finally more granny changes after all the lights came on.

Here is the part that surprised me thru the process. I started finding without the panniers and gear and only a basket on the back and a small handlebar bag on the front. With the mirrors and fenders and lights it was about 15 pounds heavier than the Cannondale but the bike I was riding the most and seemed almost as fast maybe not in a sprint but over 20 miles it was. More of a minivan compared to a sports car. It wouldn’t win any beauty contests with its Fred look but fits my needs for commuting and touring etc. Next Sunday I’m signed up for a charity ride with friends called “Gears to Beers” a leisurely 25 mile hilly ride from the city out to a country brewery. I’m debating what bike to ride as I know the group I will ride with will be slow. I’m about 99% sure I will take the touring bike in case I have a keg strapped on the rack for the return ride.

I personally am not sold on the compact, i ride in a very flat area and have many stops. so i do have to jump from the small ring to the big way to often.

if i lived where there were hill and mountains i would want a triple no ifs ands or buts. I LOVE the tight gear spacing in the rear, but again dealing with hills do you need tight spacing?

Shouldn't we take into account the most important factor: a double just looks way cooler than a triple.

All kidding aside, since you are new to a road bike just get whatever is stock on the bike that you want/in your price range and you will be happy with what is there. After you have ridden a few thousand kilometers you will know exactly what you want - it could even be a completely different bike. By the way, I have a triple on my road bike, a single on my commuter and a double on my mountain bike and they all do the job just fine.

Which do you like better?

Chocolate or Vanilla?

Very similar argument to what we have here. It is just preference.

That said:

If I'm riding with more than 60 lbs of touring gear on a multi-day trip, then I use a triple.

For everything else, I prefer a compact.

Need? Well, that's subjective.


Examine a few criteria, however.

1) Do you like to spin fast, even on steep hills?
2) Are you philosophically opposed to walking up a hill?
3) Do you want the ability to tackle any terrain you come across?


If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then a triple is probably a good idea.

I have a triple. I love it. It's saved my bacon on many occasions. I have never found the shifting to be problematic, contrary to popular roadie opinion. And as a clyde, I am unconvinced that shaving off the minuscule weight of a single small chainring will offer me any benefits whatsoever. People may call me a noob, but when they have to get off their bikes to get up a hill, I'll laugh when I pass them.

But the real answer is: get whatever gears you feel most comfortable with, not what other people say you should get.



For the record my gearing is 24/36/48 and 11-34 at 700Cx45, and my weight has ranged from 360-400 on this configuration, and let me tell you, I've needed 24/34 far more often than I've needed 48/11.

I have a triple on my road bike. I don't use it too often, but when I do need it, I'm glad I have it. Like here:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/7078935165_e39843d858_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/)
Easter Hill Country Tour 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yospiff/7078935165/) by Yo Spiff (http://www.flickr.com/people/yospiff/), on Flickr

The guy riding has some odd looking cycling shoes....

Your riding on the flats at a comfortable pace and you hit a bit of a headwind and need to drop a gear. With a triple you drop a little gear and keep a nice cadence. With Apex type gearing you dump a load and find yourself spinning faster than you want. Apex is an option to triples but you do get a wide range rear end which I find obnoxious but imho, that's the trade off.

Here's one of many websites that could help with your double vs. triple quandry:

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#

You could plug in a gear ratio you're familiar with and compare it to a theoretical double or triple.

For what it's worth, I'm 6'7", weigh 230 lbs, and ride a 50/34 11-36 on my commuter/road bike. I've ridden 1,200 miles this year and climbed 44,300 ft (according to Strava) and am happy with my compact double.

If I were to go touring I'd probably want lower gears. But that's another thread.