adlai

The triple would have like 50-39-32, the double is 50/36

Thoughts? I'm hoping that a double would 1) have cleaner shifting and not as much rattling around the front derailleur and 2) be a bit less unwieldy than the triple.

Barrettscv 

Where do you ride? Discribe why you ride, please.

It's a matter of having the right tool for the job.

Michael

adlai

mostly commuting, fairly flat, but I have at times used my "granny gear"

I'm mostly concerned with mechanical advantages besdides weight

Barrettscv 

A compact double will have about 90%, or more, of the gear range of a road triple. The double is simpler, has a thinner Q factor (the width between pedals) and shifts better in many cases.

Most compact doubles tend to cross chain at normal riding speeds of around 18 to 21 mph. To avoid using the big chainring with the bigger cogs on the cassette, the rider needs to shift the front chainrings while slowing. In the same situation, the middle chainring on a triple will not need to be down shifted.

I like having a triple, however a double should work well for you. You will be shifting the front chainrings as you speed up to 20 mph speeds. You may also need to shift the chainrings again as you slow down to 10 mph speeds.

Michael

sooprvylyn

Double crank

Seriously triple cranks are rediculous for all but the most extreme riders. The nominal difference in gear ratios that you get from a triple vs a double is not noticeable to the average rider. In some cases you can even end up with redundant gear ratios. All it generally does is add weight. It is just as stupid as bikes having more than about 7 rear cogs.

Think about this- how many gears do you actually use on your bike. For most people its really only 3-4 different gears. Unless you are doing high grade(7%+) massive hills or steep technical riding there is no need for anything less than a 2:1.5 and no greater than 3.5:1 these are easily attainable with a 12-14 speed setup.

Do you really think you would feel the difference between a 2.61:1 and a 2.54:1, I don't think so.

Who really needs 21-30 speed setups, c'mon

Sorry for the rant!

Barrettscv 

A good triple crankset is not significantly heavier than a double at the same pricepoint. A double provides two speed ranges: faster for flats or slower for climbing. A triple provides three speed ranges, very slow for steep climbs, moderate speed for normal riding and third range for higher speed travel.

See this thread for more info: https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/719-double-triple-crankset.html

Michael

Al1943

I ride standard doubles myself, no offense but I really don't agree with some of your reasoning. In my experience flat land riders tend to use all of the cogs in the rear and benefit more from closer ratio spacings. My riding is mostly flat with some rolling hills and a few short steep grades. I prefer my 10-speed cassette to my 9-speed cassette because the extra cog in the middle helps keep my cadence in the 95 - 105 rpm range. This really helps when riding in a pack and when trying to match speeds with others and with fighting gusty headwinds. If I had a triple 10-speed I would have the same advantage but a heavier bike. I use every gear on my bikes on every ride and would use more if I had them.
If I switch to a compact double I'll probably go with a 50-36, I don't like the bigger ratio jump of a 50-34.
Would I feel the difference in a 2.61:1 and a 2.54:1? Absolutely.

jbpence

like the other poster said, get thr right tool so YOU can do the job. so understand the job, and understand YOU.

some folks HAVE to have a triple out here in the west. Hills can go on for 25+ miles, can get steep. others can manage with a compact double.

i have three bikes. touring bike with a mtb triple (as LOW as you can go). two road bikes, one standard road gearing, one compact. which one i use depends on that job i want to do.

i had a road triple, but discovered i am strong enough to use a compact on most hille out here so I wasn't using that bike a lot. so I sold it.. if its too steep for the compact double, i use my touring bike.

not hilly and want to go faster, i use the regular geared double.

bikes in a quiver, use the right arrow for the job.

HillRider

Tell you what. I don't know where you live or what terrain you have to deal at home with but come to SW PA or West Virginia and go riding with me. After we get back from Walker Mill Road, Sycamore St. and Potomac Ave. we'll discuss how ridiculous a triple is for ordinary riding.

Sure a triple has several redundant gear ratios. That's a feature, not a bug. Also, the weight difference is very small except for the most committed weight weenie and the availability of lower gears can be invaluable at times. Don't knock it if you haven't needed it.

jbpence

no disrespect, but..

selection of triple, double, or regular gearing depends on terrain and strength of rider. right tool for the job.

and:

I use all of my gears (non cross chained) gears every time i ride.

difference between 2.61:1 and a 2.54: IS detectable

having more than 7 cogs is not stupid - for everyone. might be stupid for you, given the tool YOU need for the job.

The nominal difference in gear ratios that you get from a triple vs a double is definately noticeable. depending on strength of rider and steepness of terrain, you might not need the nominal difference of the triple.

sooprvylyn

Guys,
I didn't say triples were totally useless, but for most people they really are. Kudos for you if you use every gear on your 30 speed bike, I'll race you any day on a 12 speed and probably only use 6 gears of that.

As to the guy from PA or WV, dont talk about the apalacians as if they are real mountains, I'm from VA and I know those hills well. You still don't need more than 14 speeds for those provided you have a high enough top end and low enough low end.

To the westcoast riders, I feel you, I'm on the west coast now. I didn't say that 3 speed front is never a good idea, in fact I specified that they are good for somone ride long steep inclines. like we have out here. Jeez.

My argument is that most riders dont need the rediculously small differences in gear ratios you get from these mega-geared bikes, 12-14 speeds is more than enough for most riders. I know some of you want to justify having spend bucks on more gears than you need, but get real folks. Man up and use your legs, technology doesn't improve the skill of a rider.

sooprvylyn

BTW I ride single now if that says anything to you about my bias towards lower gear numbers

Pick up your cadence if you want to go fast, muscle up if you want to climb, that is my motto.

Barrettscv 

It's all about you.

sooprvylyn

My 1 gear is 34:16, and it worked in VA for almost everything(not the apps of course) and it works in SoCal fine too.

sooprvylyn

Of course

adlai

eh, 52:16 feels similar to 42:13. With a compact, you're mainly giving up the middle ring, which I think I could live with, especially if it gives me a smoother mechanical shifting in hte front.

johnknappcc

I don't think a *properly adjusted* triple shifts any worse than a *properly adjusted* double or compact. Therefore, I don't think you will get improved shifting moving to a compact, all other things equal. My triple shifted like butter, and my current compact double shifts like butter.

Other than that . . . choose the gearing you like, and don't tell somebody else how ridiculous their gearing is.

sooprvylyn

52:16=3.25 ratio
42:13=3.23 ratio

are you seriously going to feel the difference between 2 tenths of a rotation per pedal stroke when you are above 3 rotations. Not a chance. This is what I am talking about.

sooprvylyn

my bad 2 100ths of a rotation per pedal stroke. even more rediculous

sooprvylyn

Like I was saying find out what you need on the low end and what you need on the high end. Gear your bike for these two cogs, and i guess decide how many increments you want in between

fatsoforgotso

You have more options than those two (triple vs. compact double).

I've run a 53/39 with a 12-23 cassete (stock gearing on my first road bike). Not fun for a fatso like me.

Then I went to a 110bcd compact 50/34, switching cassetes between a 12-26 and an 11-32 if the bike was loaded on the rear rack or not, and in respect to how fit I was or how hilly the route was.

Now I've gone back to the original 130bcd crank and fitted a 42t middle tripleizer chainring that holds a 24t on the inside, giving me 53/42/24 x 11-32 or whatever I feel like using as a cassete for the given ride.
With a 11-32 cassete there's no overlap in the 53/42 chainrings giving me a "half step plus granny" option and I use the 24t chainring for only the steepest climbs. The search for my perfect road riding/loaded commuting gearing has ended. I feel like I'm married for life with this setup.

Al1943

What's that?

fatsoforgotso

Oh, and for some serious enlightenment on gear options don't forget to read from The Gospel of Sheldon

Why can't Shimano and Campagnolo market a serious half step plus granny system, instead of, say, the stupid and overpriced electronic shifting and 11 cog cassettes? Why? WHY?

sooprvylyn

I never claimed to be a spelling bee champ. Cant find a legitimate thing to say so you attack my spelling. good on you bro.

HillRider

True but limiting the cog numbers and using a double crank, while still able to get both extremes, does leave big holes in the middle. Now a straight block from 11 to 19 isn't essential but smaller steps can be very comfortable. One advantage to most 10-speed and some 9-speed cassettes is that they have the VERY useful 16T cog.