tlavergne

I am 50, in good shape and live in mildly rolling hills in Ohio. I just bought a Merckx bike on Ebay and have the choice of Campy Chorus components or a Campy Triple. Since I have always rode traditional 10 speed bikes the thought of a triple kind of intimidates me. The seller, also 50, suggests the triple to help the legs on longer rides. I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
Tom

backinthesaddle

why not a Chorus triple, they do make them

as far as triple vs. double, there are endless threads in these forums about that, I'd suggest browsing them

if you're in reasonably good shape and will never ride anywhere than the mildly rolling hills of Ohio, a double's probably enough. if there's any chance one of those hills is steep, or that you'll ever take your bike out of Ohio, why not a triple?

Terex

Go with a compact double.

FarHorizon

Your bike, your choice. If it were mine, I'd opt for the double - less weight, less chainline movement, better looks.

DnvrFox

My triples have worked perfectly (on two road bikes) the past 20,000 miles or so. Don't let the anti-triple folks scare you with horror stories.

They are real nice to have in the mountains, and even more appreciated as I recover from a recent heart procedure and have to take it easy for awhile.

You must be kidding - people look at chain rings for "looks?" Come on Far, Far, Far Horizon.

FarHorizon

If you don't think folks care about what their cranksets look like, you haven't spent much time at the road riding forum. I may not agree with them, but yes, LOTS of folks apparently care about form over function.

tlavergne

Thanks for the input. I searched double vs triple and found the info I need. I think a double will be just fine. Again, thanks for the help.
Tom

John E

First, figure out just how low a bottom gear you require. Next, figure out how high a top gear you really need. If the ratio between the two numbers is less than 3:1, you can probably come up with a great 14-, 16-, or 18-speed combination with a double chainring. If you need more range, seriously consider the triple, particularly if you like your gear ratios close together, as I do.

At age 55, in an area with moderate hills, I happily use a variety of gearing schemes on the road:
50-42 / 13-15-17-19-21-23-26 (104 down to 44 gear-inches)
48-45-34 / 13-15-17-19-21-23 (100 down to 40)
45-42 / 13-15-17-20-23-26 (93 down to 44, superb for commuting and transportation)

The real key is to give up 100+ gearing, such as 53/11, which you probably don't need. Well into the 1970s, a 100-inch top gear was plenty for the Tour de France, and it still is for me.

DnvrFox

You are right about that.

But, I never care what other folks think about stuff like that anyway. I'm the guy in the tennies on my triple with the pedal clips, or wearing a sweat on the Lemond with the clipless.

Function, function, function.

GrannyGear

Form vs. Function or Pride vs. Humility? I notice most of the never-caught-dead-with-a-(clunky)-triple are those testosterone sponge types in the twerp Road Cycling section 8-) Age and wrinkles, like ivy growing on a stone wall, may soften their edges and grow them up LOL.

I'll go with John E. that, unless there's a hilly need, I'd opt for close set cogs and ratios. But grunting up a long steep with a cadence in the 30's is a drag and a knee popper. Check out the max capacity of your double rear derailleur...maybe having a back-up cassette (e.g. 14-30) and a 39 ring for those rare days you need them. Should you move or tour the Alps....you can grow your bike fleet like many of us.

77Univega

--- When I moved from the flatlands of Los Angeles to the hills & gullies of Humboldt County, I modified my '70s 10-speed to make it easier for my middle-aged legs. I switched the double chain rings from a 52-40 to a 48-30. If you like to tinker with tools like me, then you can do it urself or hire the LBS.

cyclezen

So, Tom
I'd expect that you might have your mites on the 'Merckx' by now...
Howzit?
Have you had much of any saddletime?
any bike pron to post?
enquiring bike-aholics wanna know

ctyler

I agree. I have a Cannondale Saeco CAD3 with a Campy Record Triple. Great components and so glad I got the triple. This debate about double vs triple is just so much BS.

I guess that for FarHorizon and many others in cycling, style is everything! It's all about looks not cycling.

tlavergne

Well I got the bike a few weeks ago. I love it. Very smooth and precise. I don't have as much saddle time as I would like but enough that I have tweeked things a bit. I had to replace the 120mm stem with a 90mm...when I did that I went ahead and had all of the cables replaced. It has a nice saddle on it but I want to get a Brooks on it. I'll post some pics if I can find my digi camera. I look forward to putting some miles on it yet this fall but I am in the middle of a house renovation that I need to get done before the weather gets cold. Not enough time for everything.

cyclintom

This has become my main choice. I've tried triples and while Campy works better than Shimano, a triple just shifts clunky.

Now that I'm 60 and approaching my next birthday I don't need that 45 mph gear that I never could use anyway. Give me a compact.

jackb

A triple shifts smoothly if it is in tune. Aesthetically, a triple and a double look the same to me. Go triple if you want more gearing options going up hills. I use my small chainring all the time, expecially on those days that I feel lazy.

trayer350

The guy is trying to help you, and you are telling him that he is a newcomer? Nice.

cyclezen

Brooks? cause of butt 'fit'?

Don't remember what saddle was on it, but if it's nice early 90's or late 80's, I'm always scroungin for those since my butt is from that 'era'. I haven't found anything in the new stuff that works as well for me.
DOOOOODE, no ridin? bummma.
Weather? Cold? oops, forgot youz not in CA - it has gotten a little 'hot' and fiery recently though...

Yes, do get some pics up in the vintage forum bikes area. We should take this to 'vintage' anyway, otherwise this whole "triple/double inter-ringal" thing will bring em out into the 'streets' again, and never subside.
Triples and Doubles has co-existed amicably for many years now, and they even married to birth some very nice compacts.
can't we all just get along?

FarHorizon

You know squat! Where I live (flat, flat, and more flat) even a double is silly! A triple is just triple silly. I use a double (or a single!) not for "style" but because they're all I need for my riding.

The double/triple debate IS NOT BS! Different folks have different needs. Riders in mountainous States have good reasons to go with triples. Riders in flat States don't. If this isn't plain to you, you have my sympathy.

cheeseflavor

DISCLAIMER: My opinion is just that. My experience on a bike covers a total of 1.5 years, so bear that in mind

I suspect our landscape here is similar to yours. We've got mainly rolling hills. However, there are a few steep climbs that we encounter from time to time, and I've been glad I've got my triple. I spend probably 99% of my time in the middle ring. I try to keep my cadence around 90-100RPM over most of the ride and that seems to serve *me* well. If I want to go faster, I just pedal faster.

I think the key to keeping your legs fresh lies more with how you ride. Cadence is important. Use higher RPMs and you're legs stay fresher because you don't have to muscle your way through the ride. Very, very rarely have I needed the smaller or larger ring, BUT I HAVE used them and am glad I have them. If I were to purchase another bike, I'd go with a triple again.

Take care,

Steve

biker7

The seller is right. This is a 50 and older forum and I am 51 and can likely keep up with anybody on this board and can outride many 30 year olds. I ride a triple. If your landscape is perfectly flat you can make do with a double but if you ride rolling hills, I highly recommend a triple and I own both.
There are many that ride doubles more due to denial than for utility...I pass them all the time on the road...especially in the hills.
HTH,
George