cyccommute 

It works the other way just as well. I wasn't dead after the 100 km ride nor after the 70 mile ride in Durango. I've done 100 mile road rides in the Colorado mountains and 70 mile touring days (self contained) in the Appalachia mountains that have wiped me out more than any mountain bike ride I've ever done...including the 70 mile ride in Durango.

Yes, it's about time and effort but both take time and effort. Simply saying that a 16 mile mountain bike ride is harder than a 50 mile road ride is just wrong without taking into account the route.

NYMXer

I think the biggest difference is that road rides are mostly legs where mtb riding is really a full body workout, inc mental focus on the trail that is constantly changing, where as a road ride is relatively similar mile after mile.

Similar in many ways but they differ in so many more. I like both, for different reasons. For sure, I love the "no cars" part of riding mtn bikes

corrado33

Ah, I see. For the simplicity aspect. I guess there is an argument there, but I personally wouldn't set a newbie up with a 1x setup. Front derailleurs aren't THAT hard to learn and they will appreciate the extra gears. I think the benefits of the triple outweigh the drawbacks, even for new riders.

Shimagnolo

That is a big pet peeve:

Just because they developed *rear* indexed shifting, they stupidly made the *front* shifter a pseudo-indexed shifter, instead of leaving it a friction device. At least Campy was nice enough to put enough closely-spaced clicks in there to be able to properly trim it. But all my Shimano brifters have the bare minimum click positions, and are sometimes difficult to trim properly.

The ex-GF never could get it through her head that the FD shifting was *not* indexed. Instead of pushing the lever until it shifted, she would stop on the first click, then whine "It won't shift". I would show her repeatedly how to shift it, but it never sunk in. I imagine there are other newbies out there like that.

L134 

So, I have to admit to being ignorant and confused. I’m a 63 year old fart and had no idea what a “compact double” was so, I looked it up. 110 BCD with 50 and 34 chain rings vs something with a bigger BCD . Huh? I have a 38 year old Sugino triple with 110 BCD. So is that a compact triple? I have a 16 year old Shimano 105 with a 130 BCD and a 48t large chain ring. I think I can go sub 30 on the small chain ring. So how does a compact double change anything at all for me? I have a TA crank 26/40/47 and another TA on a tandem with a 30/49/54 and I can mix and match those pretty much as I wish. I’ve got another tandem with a “compact triple” of 30/42/50. All of this is sounding more and more like marketing hype to me that is almost totally meaningless just like the whole 1x, 2x, 3x debate. All my bikes are triples. I always want to have a gear lower than what I think I will need. Yeah, there have been times (especially on a tandem) where I had to stop and dismount to get the thing to shift to the granny. At least I could do it. The double is less complicated? Maybe, but then you don’t have that granny, huh? Why not ride a fixie and be done with all the complications of shifting?

The thing is, no matter what range one can get with a 1x or 2x, I can get more with a 3x or, for any given range, I can get closer gaps with the 3x. I’ve got this short little hill close to home with a max grade of 17% which I take occasionally to make sure I can drop to my granny and to test myself and my granny. Funny thing, I’ve noticed, as my granny goes lower so does my time up the hill. If somebody else wants to do it in a “compact double,” fine with me but if a 3x gets me up faster and easier then that seems the right decision for me. Then, my TA with a middle of 40 will take me all the way from say 7 mph up to over 20 shifting straight through on an 11-32 9 speed cassette. I’ve often wondered why I can accelerate off a red light much faster than the jocks half my age (assuming they bother to stop). I’m coming to realize from posts that it must be because they are riding “compact doubles” that don’t have a good shift from 34 to 50 but the low on the 50 isn’t low enough for a fast start. Oh, they blow by me soon enough but, seems to me with proper gearing, they would leave me in the dust from the get go. I hate getting stuck behind these guys at a light and then have to choose between accelerating around them or lingering behind them as they struggle to find their pedal and crank their manly gear. I just step into my double sided MTB pedal and go. I usually pass them even though I don’t like putting them in the position of then having to pass me immediately but I don’t really like lingering in intersections any longer than I have to. Another reason for my 3x.

That marketers want to suggest that I am a less knowledgable cyclist (read the “Big Shift” in Adventure Cycling), weaker or whatever else for riding a 3x, well, that is just plain garbage. They are trying to create sales for a niche that has little reason for being. If another cyclist wants to feel stronger or more knowledgable than me by riding a 1x or a 2x, whatever...

ThermionicScott 

That's assuming he'd be willing to let it go after getting an answer.

Steve B.

[QUOTE=L134;18914669] I have a 16 year old Shimano 105 with a 130 BCD and a 48t large chain ring. I think I can go sub 30 on the small chain ring. /QUOTE]

Smallest ring you can get for a 130BCD is 38. Back when you could build you own cassettes (so 8 speed) you could somewhat start with a 12, 13, or 14 or so and custom build up to the capacity of the R derailer. That all changed when Shimano on their 9 speed made the largest 4 or so cogs into a spider. Made it harder to do custom.

As well, as they went to 10 and 11 speeds, the starting cog (smallest) became an 11 typical. When paired with an 39/53 crank, mere mortals had little use for the 11 or 12. Thus lots of folks moved to the compact double 110BCD 34/50 to make use of the crappy Shimano cassette choices.

I love my Ultegra 9 spd. triple as I run a 13-23 and a 26/38/52 ring set. Shifts great and the almost straight block cassette gives me tight gearing. I've got the range to climb as well as the gearing to ride into the wind and on the flats.

1x whatever on a road bike makes no friggin sense to me, as you lose the tight cassette range and if riding flats, find yourself with big jumps between gears.

roadfix

On my bikepacking rig if I can get a range of say, 18 through 70 gear inches, on a 1x set up that's what I would prefer.

PaulRivers

I think the 1x11's are great.

I think the triples are great.

I think the hate of triples is simply the usual cycle of "well it's old so I sound cool hating it - it's so out of date! hahaha".

I'm not a fan of doubles. What I really like with triples is being able to ride most of the time without shifting the front ring at all. You just sit in the front middle ring almost all the time, with the ability to shift up or down if you want to put effort into it, only shifting on the rear cassette. I have some family members that can't keep gearing straight (they just want to ride not thinking about gearing) and they have a lot more enjoyable ride on a triple.

Shimagnolo

I look at it like this:

Big ring: Descents and/or strong tailwinds
Small ring: Climbs and/or strong headwinds.
Middle ring: Used for everything else.

rydabent

You have a good point. On my recumbent bike and trike the chain line is long enough cross chain angles are very low. I am able to run any combo gears I want with out problems.

PaulRivers

I think of it like this -

Middle Ring - the majority of the time when I don't want to put to much mental effort into my ride and just enjoy riding, only shifting in the rear.

Little Ring - the extremely rare case of hitting a really steep hill, or biking with panniers full of stuff (like grocery shoping).
Big ring - the fairly rare case where I'm biking all out and willing to put more mental effort into keeping tracking of what's where in order to get more speed

I find double's annoying because I run out of gears a lot sooner on one end or the other, and have the mentally keep track of where the gear in the front is. If you only use the rear gear it's simple - shift according to your needs, either it shifts or you've run out of gears and you can't do more anyways. Am I lazy? Yes. But that's often why I ride, I'm not getting paid to ride or anything. Also the middle ring avoids rubbing when in the max or min gear on the back.

Steve B.

Well of course, on a bent the "chainstay" is like 4 feet.

Steve B.

The obvious solution to this is to upgrade to Shimano Di2 and a Garmin Edge computer that pairs with the Di2 system to show you what gears you are sitting in.

A simple use of the credit card and the expenditure of about $2,000 or so and your problem is solved.

caloso

I've got bikes with a single (42x15 FG), a traditional 53-39 double, a mid-compact 52-36 double, and a triple 48-38-30. They're all great. Choices, man. No hate.

PaulRivers

Lol I have a saying from work, every adjective telling you how "easy" "simple" etc something is counts as 1 negative point. If the negative points are more than the positive points of enthusiasm that happen because of the thing itself, then don't do it. It's been pretty accurate...

rydabent

Or-----------------------maybe the bottom line here as someone else suggested, it is little more than sales hype by manuf. to sell something different. If they can convince the gullible that here is the latest thing they need, they make more money.

cyccommute 

I agree completely that the benefits of a triple outweigh the drawbacks...not that I've found many "drawbacks" to them at all. But I have been on many mountain bike rides with new riders where they could benefit from concentrating on climbing and the technique needed to do it while keeping the other distractions to a minimum. Of course the same thing could be accomplished by simply leaving the bike in the low ring on a triple.

fietsbob

Remember...

This forum is not the world, its a sideshow, you dont matter, your* opinions, less.

and then you die and other people get your stuff.

*or my..

GamblerGORD53

Blah. Yer all Luddites. Sturmey Archer and Rohloff can't be beat.

RushFan2112

Check out the web page for the Devil Mountain Double Century (206 miles; 20,000+ feet of climbing - that's 6,100 Euro-feet). They actually ENCOURAGE the use of a triple. DMD 2016

Everything has a place and in many situations a triple is most appropriate.

Flip Flop Rider

why stop at triple? Four, five, six rings"p lol…but seriously i don't think I've ever ridden on the smallest ring on my triple so I'm getting rid of it. Gonna try a compact double and see what differences I notice. Just wanting something different really;p

Rowan

Laugh as you may, but there have been quad (four) ring set-ups.

A lot has to do with the terrain you ride in, your age, strength, aerobic and anaerobic fitness and the condition of your legs. If you ride the flats of the prairies, likely you need only three gears. If you ride in places where there are rolling hills, and nothing over 7% grades, a double with 28-11 might do you. If you live where I do, where 20% grades, mountains and some flats are standard riding conditions, a triple is very handy.

I did a century a short while ago on a double with 28-11, into one of the hilliest parts of the island. I regreted the decision about half way up a 12-mile climb that probably averaged 6-7%.

And, have you ever heard of tandem bicycles? Triples are almost mandatory on them if there is even a sniff of a hill on a ride.

I've always likened the triple on a bicycle as being like the Road Ranger gearbox on a truck; it provides a huge amount of flexibility that a single or double chainring cannot. The small ring takes care of hills and heavy loads; the middle ring is for general runaround use; and the big ring for going fast with light loads.

Rowan

Yes, but going back to the premise of the thread, it means good-quality, serviceable components become no longer available. Look at bottom brackets and the evolution away from square-taper cartridge BBs that in Shimano UN55 form last almost forever, to the rubbish that is served up today. It all has to do with that margin in the manufacturing plant.

Gullible is one of the best words to use.

PaulRivers

Lol ride whatever you find interesting, like I said in another comment what I enjoy the most about the triple is being able to leave it in the middle gear 95% of the time. I have another bike with a double, it's more annoying to ride because you have to shift the front gear a lot more to get the range. (I guess theoretically I could set up the double to match my triple's 2 top rings and I'd have the same thing since the only time I use the bottom on the triple is biking uphill with gorceries in panniers.)

I find the newer 1x11 setups very interesting - no front ring at all. They started with the obscenely expensive top end versions, but now both shimano and sram have reasonable priced versions out as well.