merlinextraligh

then get an 11. 50x11 is a higher gear than 53x12. yours is an argument for an 11 tooth cog, not against a compact.

MRT2

I ride a Touring triple (26 - 36 - 48 tooth chainrings) with a 12 - 27 tooth 9 speed road cassette. It covers from 26 to 108 gear inches. There are 17 or 18 distinct gear combinations I can use, and they are relatively closely spaced.

The middle chainring is pretty good for most flat or flattish rides. Unless I am with a group that is really hammering along, I seldom need to use the big chainring unless I am going downhill. As for uphills, the smallest combination I have using the middle chainring is 36 gear inches, which is fine for most, though not all hills. I don't often use the small chainring, but I much appreciate it when I need it.

One other time I use all three chainrings is on rides with rolling hills, which, isn't one of my regular rides but something I do every now and again with a club. So I will need the small chainring on the uphill and as I crest the hill, will shift all the way up to the big ring to gain as much speed on the downhill to get some momentum on the next uphill. (helps me keep up with the faster club riders)

I could probably get close the same range with a compact double but switching now would be costly so I am keeping my triple for the forseeable future.

69chevy

Obviously... haha

rms13

Bigger jumps between gears. I think cassette options go up to 11-42. But I think it's an option that will work for majority of riders

corrado33

Point taken. However, at those speeds you want really close gears, so I'd most likely have to remove one of the middle gears that I spend much more time in. Or I could probably remove the biggest cog, I'm rarely in that... even on big hills. Meh.

A double is a trade off. Not a huge one, but a trade off nonetheless.

69chevy

I'd take it if it shifts reliably. That is if there is a 50t with 11t-(high 30)t combo available.

I like simple.

bikemig 

I run the same set up on one of my bikes (a soma double cross). It's a really versatile set up. You get gears to hammer on, gears to spin on, and gears to climb on; plus the steps are relatively closely spaced. The price you pay for a wide ranging double is that the steps get farther apart.

SpikedLemon

I tow a trailer with my Synapse (compact double). And also tow with my MTB (triple).

While my MTB has a 3x7: I spend almost all of my time on the large ring. The only scenario that I can think of that forced me to drop down was taking the trailer offroad and going up a few rather steep hills. But gearing is completely different.

My Synapse (2x10): I like the double and riding solo I have no reason to want anything else but, every so often, I wish I could drop down "just one more gear" when towing the trailer up a steep hill. And there've been a few times that I wish I had "just one more gear" up to get a little more speed but I think some of that is my own pedalling speed not being there yet. I don't regret not getting the triple.

merlinextraligh

This sounds reasonable, and has been the traditional justification for triples, but as we've added cogs, the difference in spacing is deminimis.

Take Corrado's example. With a compact setup, you'd run a 50/34, and an 11-30

To get the same low end gear with a typical triple of 52/39/30, you'd have to run an 11-28 to get the same low gear.

So the spacing is:

Triple: 11,12,13,14,15,17,19, 21, 23, 25, 28.

Compact: 11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,24 27,30.


The spacing 11-21 is exactly the same. Above 21 you move 3 teeth on the largest 3 cogs, instead of two. And typically when you get down to the lowest gears the relief of a large jump can be welcome.

MileHighMark

I have SRAM 1x11 (42t x 10-42t) on my gravel/commuter bike, and it works really well.

MRT2

You might be able to change out your cassette and get that one extra gear. I did this this year when I switched from a 12 - 25 to a 12 - 27 cassette. The difference was a mere couple of gear inches but sometimes that is all you need.

69chevy

I like it.

I'm looking at the website now.

Athens80

Because I use the middle ring most of the time. Big ring for downhill and the rare extended level road. Small ring for steeper ~7-12% uphill grades, even just half a mile.

MileHighMark

Been on it for a while (approx 1K miles). Let me know if you have any questions.

D1andonlyDman

A 9x3 gear setup is still more versatile than 11x2. If you know how to design a triple, you basically design it like a conventional 9x2 setup, with the small chainring basically serving the purpose of giving you bailout gears. a front triple of 28-39-51 is going to shift easier than a 34-51, while giving you bailout gears that go to 16% lower than the double. The chain-line of a proper triple setup is also not an issue because you design it so that the chainline is optimized for the two bigger rings, and you don't care about cross-chaining the granny with the 3-4 smallest cogs on the cassette- as you are basically never going to use those gears. In a proper triple setup, you only need to use the granny chainring with the biggest 4-5 cogs on the cassette.

And BTW, 9 speed chains last noticeably longer than 11 speed chains, and the 9-speed drivetrain components are noticeably cheaper.

MZilliox

I almost dropped into my triple on a 10% climb after almost 40 miles today. I didn't quite have to, but it was close. I was fighting a pretty good head wind before the hill, so I just didn't quite have it all to climb. But i was still fighting the clock, so i wanted to keep my time up. That triple almost saved me from some pain, as it has saved me in the past.

I still want a "race" bike with a campy compact double 10 or 11 speed, but since i'm riding on older steel, and sometimes carrying a load, a triple 7speed or triple 9speed are nice to have for now.

indyfabz

Therein lies your answer. That's 55'/mile over a short distance of 18 miles. Were that 55'/mile over, say, 60 miles I many people around my way would consider that a relatively easy to moderate. Certainly nowhere near a bit extreme.

Also relevant are grades. You can have a long day with a lot of total climbing miles but with relatively easy grades. That's a lot different than tackling steep grades. I was recently touring in South Dakota. One day I left my gear in camp and rode to Keystone. From there I made the two or so mile climb up to Mount Rushmore. Even with only a small stuff sack with rain gear bungeed to the rear rack I was struggling at times in my granny gear of 26x34. Why? Because there were stretches of double digit grades. While my touring bike with racks is a good deal heavier than my road bike, I think part of that climb would have been a struggle in the low gear of 34x28 that my road bike has, which is the lowest you can go with a DA 9000 regular rear derailleur.

merlinextraligh

So in your example what 9 speed cassette are you running?

hairnet

Out here in Los Angeles some do. The city itself is full of rollibg Hills, some long and steep enough to defeat a lot of average risers. Going out for distance you can do centuries full of canyons and mountains. You can on road and off road, trails and fire roads. Getting out of the basin requires a 2000ft climb of varying steepness. Some people can muscle all of it on a fixed gear while others can't and need the gears.

fried bake

triples are awesome--can climb in the 30 and roll in the 39 all day long without clumsy shifts and gaps in the meat of the range.

Bandera

I've ridden the same Hill Country routes for >30 years.
The grades haven't eased any and the wind blows undiminished.
What was once doable on a 53/42 13x23 has become 50/34 12X25 and I can sense how this is going to go from here.

I dislike the fiddly shifting on compacts particularly in a paceline.
Next up is a triple 52/39/30 with a 10cog 12X25, good shifting and a bailout with nice tight ratios.

-Bandera

Doctor Morbius

I have triples because that's what entry level road bikes (and mountain bikes) came with in 2003 - 2004. Three of my bikes are 9 speed from that time period. One is an 8 speed hybrid with a triple from 2010/11, which I will probably change over to a 9 speed this winter.

I live in a pretty flat area (Indianapolis) and never use the granny gear, except when I go to a local city park (Eagle Creek Park) that has a few hills. If I'm in decent condition I'll stay in the middle ring up front on those hills. Otherwise, I'll have to granny gear them.

LesterOfPuppets

I hated triples on road bikes for years and years. Also hated compacts. Had a triple on a 1988 Trek 400T briefly in the mid 90s, didn't care for it much, but then I was still happy climbing crazy hills with 42x23 low.

Then I just got too old and too slow for even 52/39, 11-28.

Got my Lemond with a 3x9, loved it. Decided 30x26 wasn't low enough, so swapped out the little ring to give me 52/42/26 x 11-25. I still have 52/39 x 13-27 on my Scapin but I won't pick that bike for anything that has much 5% + action on it.

D1andonlyDman

The two wheels that I use interchangeably have 12-26 (SRAM) and 12-27 (Shimano) cassettes. These cassettes are identical for the 7 smallest cogs, and the 12-27 is 1 tooth larger on the two biggest cogs. These are basically are the biggest cassettes that the Shimano standard cage 9-speed derailleurs support.

rdtindsm

I bought a BD bike that had a triple on it when I got back into some serious riding. I put something like a 12-23 (might have been a 13 and or 22).

I am getting old, 67, and the need for big gears is a pipe dream. While that narrow cluster is antithetical to most concepts of triple gearing, I could also find exactly the gear I wanted. very few double shifts.

for one reason or another, I have one bike with a 53/39 and 10 sp 14/28 and 11 speed 50/36 12/28. Both bikes have a gap at a sweet spot that bugs !-!ell out of me.