superdex

This tells me you are better off with a triple for the low end. I use a (semi)compact double because it's simpler to think about and has the gears I use, and not more. For me, it just works. Shrug.

FWIW, A compact double (50/34) and a 12-28 cassette doesn't use/need a long cage mtb derailleur.

superdex

I like pie.

Mr IGH

He would have died from laughter when he saw all my spacers. Seriously, if Gramps was a real man he would have fought the Indians for his land like my Grampa....

DrIsotope

In the two weeks leave he had before he boarded a landing craft bound for Normandy, he rode a bike the length of Britain from John o' Groats to Lands End. Didn't use a bunch of gears then, either.

Paul Barnard

I don't race and I don't do fast group rides. This gearing has never left me wanting. 40x11-40. Shifting isn't as smooth as my Ultegra/Dura Ace double, but I can't say the smoothness of the shifting has ever benefited me in any way. It's simply smoother. This one shifts when I want it to, never binding, skipping or hesitating.

Mr IGH

Gramps always told my Dad (who survived Iwo Jima), "You had the Marines, all I had was your Mom."

Mr IGH

When did getting a 3x9 become "binding, skipping or hesitating"? I have older Tiagra 4503 kit and it works really well. And there can't be any weight advantage when you're running a 11~40 11 speed cassette. Glad it's working well for you, I can't see that it offers anything that can't be overcome by watching a few youtube videos and learning how to adjust a front derailleur.

Paul Barnard

I have built singles, doubles and triples. My comment wasn't meant to imply that a triple is inferior. Someone suggested the long cage derailleur-wide space cassette configuration provided clunky shifting. That's why I mentioned that mine was pretty good. I suppose the whole reason for the post is to show there's many ways to skin a cat and end up with something completely workable for a given person's riding style. And you are right about the weight savings. That big cassette is HEAVY!

TimothyH

I have nothing useful to add to this thread nor do I care to be involved but just felt like saying what a beautiful machine that is in the background and how much I admire you for the blue ano cranks and other bits.

Glad I clicked in to see this pic. Now I'm hungry for edamame.

-Tim-

Drew Eckhardt 

It maximizes profit by allowing bike companies to manufacture fewer sets of crank arms and only two position left shift levers. 4-bolt cranks made things even better with the elimination of separate 110mm compact and 130/135mm full-size parts.

Achieving the same range you'll need the same cage length if you don't want chain slack pairing small ring with small cogs.

50-34x11-36 = 16+25 = 41T of wrap
53-39-24x12-25 = 29+13 = 42T of wrap

Regardless, cage length doesn't change shifting.

One built for bigger cogs will be farther from the cassette when using smaller largest cogs, although that's independent of cage length.

HerrKaLeun

I recently went from a 3x9 to a 2x10 and never want to go back. Experience:
- over time the triple doesnt'shift well with cheaper components, or with some wear or slight misadjustment.
- 2x chainring shifts better due to the 2/3 ratio and the inherent ramps points
- with triple I went frequently from large to middle etc. With the double i can stay in one chainring (large for all flat and slight inclines, small for all hills or off-road). So I mainly shift only the rear. Once I shifted front for the terrain. it basically is a temporary 1x setup if you will :-)
- the double chainrings are closer to chainline (for triple the middle is in chainline). So I can use the rear in wider range (tolerate more cross-chaining)
- I calculated out out the gears, ratios and m/revolution and the 3x9 had only has 15 usable gears (not counting redundant and non-feasible gears or gears with too little change). 2x10 loses a bit range I have 11-36). I went down from 582% to 491%. But honestly the fastest gear (8.76 meters / revolution) is so hard to use for me I barely use it and the slowest (1.78 m / revolution) still enables me to pull a semi trailer. With a 11x40 cassette one could increase range if needed.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. To each their own. But the fact that the more expensive bikes have doubles while the cheaper ones have triples is more than marketing. Hard to compare cost since triples are on cheaper bikes. I assume they use up old tooling. Weight of the double is probably lower (everything else equal). Yes the cassette has more cogs, but is not wider. and you lose one chainring. i assume a 10x chain is lighter. i have no evidence for all this, just some educated guesses.

mstateglfr 

I wanted to try out 11sp wide range gearing because though i embrace the old, the new intrigued me.
Built my gravel bike with it.

46/34 mated to 11-36. I can get up gravel hills with the gearing and 46-11 is plenty of gearing for me as i cant keep that churning for a long time unless its steady decline.
I dont miss a triple.

I completely disagree with the comment that this produces sloppy shifting.
5800 GS derailleur connected to a Wolftooth roadlink. If anything, that should be sloppy(compared to short cage), but it shifts crisp and fast.

My main road bike is 50/34 with an 11-30 9speed cassette. Short cage tricolor derailleur. Its my gold standard for what i compare everything else to and the gravel bike's wide range works just as well.

Ill always have the wider range of a triple for my touring bikes. I need the wider range. It makes great sense there. But it shifts with a friction front setup. No triple and brifter.

fietsbob

Do the Math.

Paul Barnard

I stared at that machine for the longest time. It's an impressive contraption. I built the bike to be an event bike and an around towner. I wanted it done in a red, white and blue theme. I have really grown to like it. My Tarmac doesn't see much use anymore.

kingston 

You guys must not be from Iowa. An 8-row combine is pretty much the smallest one anyone uses. Check out this Calmer 32-row corn head.

Mr IGH

Long cage isn't going to shift as precise as a short cage, it's the law....

Mr IGH

Except now you see 42T and 46T cogs.

Paul Barnard

You have spectacular riding country out there. Just gorgeous. I make it out to CO almost every summer and take a bike with me each time I go. I am taking the MTB this year. A few years back I took a gravel type bike with mountain bike gearing on it. Coming from below sea level where the biggest climb is going over the levee and having bad knees, I was grateful for the gearing when I tackled Independence Pass. Independence from the east is comparatively easy. I need me some granny gearing.

cyccommute 

This is something that people say all the time and, frankly, I don't understand it. The last bike I owned with a double may have been a Sears 10 speed from the late 60s. Everything else has been triples. I've ridden some doubles and worked on a whole bunch of them but I've never found them to shift any differently from a properly adjusted triple. That includes very wide triples like 46/36/20 and 52/39/24. All of my triples...personally I have 8 of them along with 4 other bikes for family members...shift as crisply and cleanly as any double that I've tried or worked on.

As for "cheaper components", a dirty secret for Shimano (and only Shimano) is that all of their expensive front derailers are...well...crap. They are gorgeous pieces of engineering but there in lies the problem. All that "engineering" in the form of sculpting and tweaking have resulted in their high end front derailers being too narrow and too finicky when it comes to set up. It doesn't take much in the way of chain deflection on, say, an Ultegra front derailer to rub. It can be very difficult to set up an Ultergra so that the lower 3 gears can be used without chain rub.

Their cheaper derailers...road and mountain...have less sculpting and are wider between the derailer plates so they are more forgiving and easier to set up for a wider range. It's been that way for a very long time.

If there is a difference, it would be tiny and, for most people, undetectable. On the other hand, you could use the same ratio for a triple and nothing would really change. Other than a 3rd ring, a 50/34/24 triple wouldn't be any different than a 50/34 double. Most people are going to opt for a slightly higher middle ring...a 39 is pretty common...which may actually improve the shifting because the chain doesn't have to climb as big a hurdle to get to the outer ring.

Well you kind of have to stay in one chainring, don't you? It's not like you have much choice. Personally when I compare a compact double to a triple like this, all I see is a giant hole in the middle of the gearing.

For example, if you are riding along in the 50/15 combination with 7.1 m development and you have to shift to the inner ring, you drop to 4.7 m development. More importantly, you are traveling at 38 kph at 90 rpm. To match the speed, you have to increase your rpm to 130. Most people find that highly uncomfortable. Or you have to coast until the bike slows enough for the rpms to be more comfortable.

With the triple, the shift is more natural feeling. The shift goes from 7.1 m development to 5.5 m development. More importantly, the speed and rpm shift are smaller. To match speed, you only need to increase rpms to about 114 which is fairly comfortable for most people.

I've never thought that bicycle companies understand gearing all that well as it is and the compact double just confirms that. If they really understood gearing, they would use something like this gearing. This gives the range that mere mortals need but the shift pattern is dead simple. A shift on the front or rear results in the same gear change. The close chainring size results in crisp shifts and the shifts feel "natural". It's essentially what the compact double wants to do but really can't.

Again, you have to use a wider range and tolerate more cross-chaining. Triples allow for better chain alignment without having to "tolerate" a bad thing.

Both systems have duplicates. The compact double actually has more "non-feasible" gears than the triple because of the change in rpm necessary to use those gears. Going back to the 34/15 gear at 90 rpm and 26 kph, if you upshift to the outer ring, you are suddenly pedaling a gear that requires slowing the cadence to 61 rpm to match the speed. You are "lugging" the engine and need to shift 3 times in the back to get to a similar speed and rpm. Frankly, I find doing multiple shifts (one front and three back) to be far complicated than a triple ever is.

No, it's all "marketing". Expensive bikes are sold to wanna be racers or they are used by professional racers. Sure, I could ride a compact double but I just choose not to. Most people just getting into the sport would benefit from having a wider range is easier to shift and ride than something that is used at a professional level.

The problem, however, is that many people see a triple on a bike and think that it is for "weak" riders. Some of us see a triple on a bike and think it's for "smart" riders.

jlax2485

I went from a 9-speed/triple group to an 11 speed compact double w/ 32T cassette on my latest build, precisely because I wanted ease of setup and reduced shifting in the front. To me (and I ride some very hilly areas) the benefits far outweighs the bigger jumps in the rear. Unless you are touring or doing a ton of climbing, you don't need anything bigger than a 32T in the back with a mid-cage road derailleur.

I am extremely happy not to have to deal with a triple in the front anymore- they are a pain to set up and adjust properly.

athrowawaynic

Like so much of cycling, it's fashion, probably.

kingston 

Most recreational cyclists are weak. Pros are putting out literally 3x the power. There are lots of examples in the world of people getting stuff because it’s cool as opposed to getting what they need. I could list half-a-dozen without thinking very hard, but it would likely offend people. For some odd reason, people don’t like to admit that they buy stuff that’s impractical just because it’s cool.

All about the fashion

52telecaster

+1 I resemble that comment.

52telecaster

I ride a compact double. Its a 40, 26 compact double.

My name is Russell and I am a candyass.

kingston 

Sounds like a triple with no big ring. Smart and practical. Just coast when you hit 25 mph. No reason to race downhill.