DiscTruckerMF

i ride a triple because I need the triple for my needs but many in this conversation act as if what applies to them applies to everyone and have completely poo poohed the notion of touring with a double which seems a bit silly to me....along with all of the other curmudgeonly touring myths that get perpetuated constantly.

cyccommute 

A triple fits your needs. Maybe it fits others needs as well. Sure a double can be used for touring. Why don't you change over and see how well it works for you? To so vehemently support doubles and castigate triples as just as vehemently is disingenuous if you don't use one yourself.

I suggest that people use triples for the same reasons that you use one...because it will probably fit their needs as well. It might be best to start with a triple and remove the inner ring if a tourist finds they don't need it. But, generally, it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

KirkBeiser

I'm not sure that anyone has suggested to remove the inner ring. Several have suggested that the outer ring is unnecessary for their touring. But they compensate by having a slightly larger middle ring.

alexaschwanden

Triple.

nun

This begins to get at the philosophical underpinnings of triple vs double. I extend the minimalist approach I take to gear to my gears. So why tour with 3 chainrings when 2 will do as well. There is no right answer here, just preferences and options. Ride what you like, but lean from your riding and be open to change.

cplager

In general, there is a lot to be said for saving your energy for climbing and not wasting it on the descent. For rolling hills, this makes a lot of sense.

For mountains, however, the decents can be miles and miles long. I've heard of complaints from several people of having their legs going cold if they couldn't pedal.

Cheers,
Charles

bud16415

Just comparing range of gearing between a double and a triple is pointless. For example I run a 24,42,45 triple with a 12-36 (9 sp) cassette. The case could be made I don’t need a triple because if I were to get a 11-36 (10 sp) cassette adding just that one cog the 11t, I would then get the same top gear around 100 GI off the double (24,42), and assuming I like most here feel anything over 100 is useless for touring what good does the big ring do be it 45t or 52t or whatever it is.

For me the benefit of the triple isn’t about the overall range, I can get that fine with just two rings. For me the benefit of the triple is foremost having almost all my gears I need off one center ring that I feel safe in using without cross chaining in any position. Secondly it’s about a really straight chain line in the highest and lowest few gears, mostly the highest as I can really feel the straight chain line when in smallest 3 cogs on my big ring. The last reason I like my triple over a double is if you need the range of a wide spaced cassette like the 11 or 12, 36 you most likely won’t like the bigger jumps between gears. If you plan your triple correctly the big ring will fill in the gaps. The 52,42 that came on the bike did that as a one and a half step gearing and now my 45,42 does it as a half step gearing. If someone came up with a 15 cog cassette it would be equivalent to the spacing I have with my two biggest rings, but who wants to shift 15 times to go from one end to the other. So in that case I feel there is an advantage to half step and actually 9 might be too many cogs if anything. I think I could live nicely with 7 cogs spaced just right and a half step + granny setup. That’s what I had so that’s what I worked with.

The other advantage I hear other people liking a triple for and the one I disregarded in my setup is some people like the center ring as a transition gear because they feel the shift to the granny might be too hard of a jump. Any setups like that I tried I didn’t like because they moved my most used gears between the two large rings. Others don’t mind that at all.

I view my gearing as a double + granny just like the old days where they talked about half step + granny. I’m not concerned about where my shift pattern is transitioning to the granny range I think it’s at least 3 or 4 steps over in the back. For me that’s a whole different bike when in that gear with a gearing between 17 and 45 GI. When I’m on my normal gears (42,45) that range is 31 to 100 GI with 15 evenly spaced gears to pick from.

cyccommute 

I have no problem with change. I have no problem with new technology. I've just never found a place in the tours that I have done where a triple isn't an asset. I've found lots and lots of places where a double would be a liability. My tour through Appalachia this spring would have been a total suffer fest with just a double. I could have done it...I'm not a weak rider...but it would have been less pleasant than it really was.

I've haven't found that pedaling on downhills waste any energy. Even pedaling downhill in an attempt to get the maximum speed possible is far less strenuous than any uphill. Well, I'll take part of that back. I toured in Scotland once and had to pedal downhill in low range off of Tiger Run because there was a gale blowing up the glen. Worst downhill ever! That was a strenuous as coming up the other side.

cyccommute 

Although I disagree that any gear over 100 gear inches isn't pointless for touring...I find a good high gear very useful...your point is the same one that I've been making all along. A compact double can have a range that is close to a triple (it's usually lacking on the low end or the high end depending on ring choice) but the spread is just awful. I view my gearing in the way that you do. I'm more concerned in finding a good gear between the outer and middle rings most of the time and save the low range for hill climbing.

If you look at compact doubles in either mountain or road, the pattern is essentially the same as a double with granny, i.e. 2 separate ranges, except the middle of the range is missing. You could just fine tune with the rear cogs but the transition from one range to another is just horrible. Touring is about the unexpected...you usually don't know the roads that you are riding...and with that comes the expectation of unexpected hills. Many times, I've come around a corner to be faced with a surprising climb and had to start dumping gears. With a triple, you can shift from the outer to the middle ring and transition through the range in a fairly even manner. With a compact double, you'd have to make a huge jump to the inner ring, increase your rpm's significantly, then try to find a reasonable gear on the rear by doing several upshifts. You still have to climb the hill but you also have to futz around finding the proper gear. By the time you've found the proper gear, you've slowed down enough that you need to downshift to the gear you dumped into in the first place. That's a whole lot of fiddling. And you've lost all of your momentum so you'll have to start reaching for even lower gears...which you probably won't have.

I did the Tour of the Moon this fall with my wife. It's not a tour but it is a ride through the Colorado National Monument that starts with a fairly nasty climb. I wasn't riding my touring bike but my commuter bike which, like all of my bikes, is set up with a triple crankset and a wide range cassette (11-34). I got more comments from people on the first 4 miles...where all the switchbacks are on the map...about how they wished they had my gears. All of them were from people who had compact doubles or traditional road doubles on bikes that weighed 10 lbs less than my bike.

cplager

I'm not arguing against pedaling downhill; indeed you can pedal going downhill and still be resting. I'm arguing for (in general) taking it easy going down hill and using the energy on the uphill.

I pretty much always pedal. And because I have a heavy aerodynamic bike, I do like to get carried away on the downhills sometimes. But putting 10% more energy into a downhill run isn't going to buy you as much time as putting 10% more energy into an uphill.

pacificcyclist

I personally think that this discussion is turning into my triple is better than your double and double is terrible. Whereas the double camp says otherwise.

First of all, I have toured with a triple. It's funny that nobody recognized the Sugino Super Maxy triple crankset. It's an OLD SCHOOL triple crank known for its good quality in the 80s so you know how long I've been touring. It's 110/74BCD which means, it is a triple not a double. Not sure what so many people here think that with a 110/74BCD, you can not choose a lower gear. Mounting a 24T on the 74BCD is as low as you can get it on. Anything lower than a 24T needs a mountain triple crank!

There seemed to be a confusion that all double cranks are all a like. This is completely false. A road double crank is a 130BCD and the smallest ring is only a 39 or 38T. A compact crank is a 110BCD and the smallest ring you can fit on is a 34 o 33T. A mountain double crankset that can be adapted to road touring comes either a 45T/28T or 40T/28T.

The double crank we are taking about in the double camp is NOT a standard crankset unless you buy a Rene Herse double crank from Compass cycles (Jan Heine's company) or you make your own with a 110/74BCD triple crankset turned double. We call this a touring double or mountain double but this confuses with the SRAM double that comes standard on the Salsa Fargo.
With a touring double, 42T/24T or 40T/24T is possible. Compared this to a stock 46T/36T/24T or 26T Sugino triple crankset (XD-600 or 500 or equivalent) and the 42T/24T, you have exactly the same low gears as a triple, because the triple has the same chain ring in 74BCD as the touring double. I don't understand why there are so many people here still think a touring double with a 24T chain ring can not give the same ratios as a triple with the same 24T as its smallest chain ring. Math I suppose must not be their most strongest subject in high school. There is no difference in low gearing performance between a triple and a touring double.

The difference is in the middle and higher gearing. Let's take a 46T/36T/24T for reference purpose against a 42T/24T touring double. Against a 46T on the triple, the 42T on the double is about 10% lower in all gear ranges. This means, you are most likely to be using about 1 gear higher on the 42T to make an equivalent 46T with the rear cassette setup. The difference is not all that noticeable. I know as I have both systems. Now, a 42T against a 36T on a triple however is slightly noticeable because it makes a 42T 16% higher in all ranges against a 36T middle ring setup on a triple. This means, you are more likely to double shift to your 24T with a 42T whereas you may stay on a 36T with just 1 or 2 gears left. That's the only downside, but this does not mean you don't have all the required gears because once you are on a 24T, you will have exactly the same ratios as you would with a triple in the lower gear ranges.

There is absolutely NO problems climbing a 18-22% grades with a 19" gear unless you need a 16". But then, you will need a 20T small ring but that's available on a mountain triple crankset as the 74BCD can not take anything smaller than 24T.

A touring double is not recommended if

1, You need a 48T to 53T chain ring (apparently some people think they need and can go fast with a 48T or 53T or 120" + with 4 panniers)
2, You need a 16" gear or lower where a mountain triple crankset can accommodate

But these are the 2 extreme cases. It's like telling someone you need 4 spare tires on a car because it's likely all 4 tires can go flat. That's true, but how often that's going to happen?

We can speculate on extreme cases, but I think the majority of cases people are just going to use what ratios they want. Triple is a no brainer because it got all the ratios, but a double is sometimes a necessity for people like myself who has a double shifter and is a huge expense going to a triple because I have to change shifter, front DR when I can just change to a triple crankset 110/74BCD which in my shop happens to be bountiful (people upgrading to fancier inboard cranksets) so it lowers the cost. With people doing this and seeing them last year on tours goes to show that a touring double is feasible. But sometimes, it's just not everyone's cup of tea.

bud16415

I was kind of quoting what I have read here at least a 1000 times that 100 GI is tops for touring. When I made the change from 52,42,24 to 45,42,24 I had a little concern about losing my 106 and 115 GI top gears as I did use them from time to time almost exactly as mentioned. I would shift up into them on a long gradual downhill or sometimes even with a tail wind. Riding my bike a lot around home we get a west to east wind off Lake Erie that will often equal a nice downhill that in places can push you along for ten miles at a time. I liked those tall gears not to try and spin up to 35MPH but often to keep the legs moving and warm I would crank them at about 50RPM not at all mashing though and just cruse at 18MPH.

So when I gave up my 52 I had a tradeoff getting the simple half steps but having to spin a little more in these semi coasting runs. Now I have to do about 60RPM to maintain my 18MPH with a little less torque. The tradeoff for me was a no brainer as all the positives outweighed the negatives.

Like I have said before I could live with my 42,24 just fine and had a double. But given you have a triple shifter setup and a crank that has the 3rd ring mounting why not take advantage of it and get the extra 6 gears.

cyccommute 

No this discussion is turning into a "I'm more manly than you because I ride a double" discussion as most gearing discussions do. More on that a little further down.

Yes a Sugino Super Maxy is very old school. Like 1982 old school. We've moved on. A 110/74mm BCD is okay but they were mostly obsolete by 1995. A better choice from 1995 is a 94/58mm BCD which allows for a extremely tiny 18 tooth inner ring.

And what's the problem with going to a mountain triple? I have several. They work very well. Mountain bike cranks came out of touring cranks in the mid-80s. The Avocet Touring Triple was the first affordable crankset to offer a 24 tooth inner ring. They were quickly followed by the Sugino AT (better than the Super Maxy) and others. Both were available before mountain bikes. Then the mountain bike arrived on the scene and started using the touring cranks and then started refining them for lower and lower gears to meet the needs of mountain bike hill climbing. Touring bikes have benefited from the cross pollination.

Nope. No confusion that I've seen. A "compact" double is short hand for a 110mm BCD double crankset. A "road" double is short hand for a 130mm BCD double. Most everyone I've seen so far has been consistent. Mountain doubles are relatively new and just started to filter below the XT/XTR range. Most people that I've seen aren't usually running that level of components on their touring bikes.

You are missing the point. I know that a 24 tooth chainwheel will give the same ratios no matter how many other chainwheels are on the crank. To imply that we don't understand the math is, frankly, insulting. My objection to doubles is the other gears that are missing. The doubles have a similar range...the ones you referenced above have a 28 inner not 24...but they don't have the same spread. A touring bike with a compact double or even a mountain triple has huge gaps between the upper and lower range. Mountain bikes tend to be ridden as if they have 3 separate drivetrains but the rigors of off-road riding dictate that kind of usage. A touring bicyclist uses the drivetrain more like bud and I have detailed. More a double with a bail out low gear.

And now to "I'm more manly" part and my largest objection in any gearing discussion. Neither you...nor I, for that matter...get to decide whether there are "NO" problems with climbing any grade in any gear other then how it applies to us individually. I have no opinion if you have no problem climbing an 18-22% grade in a 19" gear. But, by the same token, you can't have any opinion if I climb the same grade in a 16" gear. It's not your place to judge. Nor is it your place to judge if I need, or can, go fast on a downhill on a loaded bike. Just as it is not my place to judge your downhill speed. Personally, I don't consider having a range from 113 to 16 gear inches to be that extreme. I can go stupidly fast on downhill and climb to the top of the same hills without wrecking my knees.

Let's get back to jisho's original question

Can he get the same ratios with a double as with a triple? My answer would be no. He can get the same range. But he's going to be missing ratios in the middle of that range that make the transitions from high range to low range smoother. No choice of cogs or chainwheels is going to change that.

pacificcyclist

Wow.. I suppose my touring double Masi is the exception here with a 42T/24T and 11-36. Transitions are smooth and choices are right. I was equally skeptical about this range as well, but the math from the gear calculator suggested otherwise. After last year's tours, I concluded that the range is fine. I own both a triple and a touring double bike so I can compare.

Cheers.. You triple guys are all "always" right!

cplager

If you want the range AND close gear ratios, a triple is the only way to go. If you don't want one or the other, then you can do a double.

pacificcyclist

The gear ratios on the touring double and triple are exactly the same, because it is the CASSETTE that dictates spacing ratio requirements, NOT like some people suggested is the chain ring. What the chain ring does is raises or lower gear inches in a specific ratio for the whole cassette range to meet riding cadence. With a double, you never get exactly the same gear inches as a triple because the chain ring sizes are different except the lowest gear, but the variances are around 10 to 16% for the first 10 high and medium gears. You either spin more or less. These are the same variances found if one owns a mountain bike with a triple crankset 42/32/22 and a carbon road bike with a double 53/39 or a time trail with a 55T/42T and he or she does triathlons on it. Millions of people ride different bikes with different gearing ratios and the differences are not so dramatic that people aren't going to ride them.

What's important in choosing a touring double is your preferred high and preferred low gears and the transition point so the jump from medium to low wouldn't be too dramatic and it seemed, both Shimano and SRAM agreed that around the 40T mark is the sweet spot. I like 42T front, but some people like 40T.

cplager

I don't see what part of my answer this addresses.

Yes, you can happily ride a double and if you compare it to a triple that has the same cassette, the difference between neighboring gears will be the same. But you won't have the range of a triple. And for many people, this is fine.

The only thing my answer left out is you could try to do something wacky like have a 42/22 double up front which may or may not actually shift, and you'd have the same range and almost the same ratios, but switching between the two chain rings would be quite an experience.

cyccommute 

Please go read what I posted. Your crank is just fine for you. I wouldn't make those choices. Nor would I suggest your gear ratios or mine for everyone.

No matter how you want to do the math, however, the transition between 2 front rings that are a large distance apart are is much larger and much less smooth than the transition on a triple with a step in between.

It's not an either/or situation. What the front does influences what the back does and vice versa. Sure, if you only shift on the back then the steps between the cassette are what dictate the gear ratios and if you only shifted on the front, the same would hold. But once you start using both front and rear, you have to take both front and back gears into account.

djb

yes this discussion is back and forth between gear heads, but what I see as positive is for the fellow who asked the question to get more insight into gearing. His question shows he is learning about touring, hence his question, so this sort of question is great to hopefully encourage him or her to look into the details of gearing more.

my experience of using a 50/40/24 for many years taught me (as I mentioned) that having 21.5 g.i. compared to 25 made a big difference. My current mtn bike with a 19.5 is even better for real steep stuff too.

Also doing the shifts from 40 to 24 certainly showed me that I prefer a 10 or so tooth difference between chainrings. I rode that bike for years, with downtube shifters and while I could do the multiple shifts well with two fingers, when I started riding bikes with 50/39/30 or 42/32/22 it was nice with the transitions being easier.
I would have to say that this is the big reason I would be hesitant to go back to big shifts between chainrings (again, depends on the terrain and how much load on the bike that will affect how much easier a double with a big tooth diff between chainrings is going to be, or not)
Im not sure if I am clear here, but I much prefer the smoother transitions between chainrings with smaller jumps--but again, you ride your ride and use what works for you. Its not a competition here, we are out there to have fun.

photogravity

+1 It's hard to go wrong with an IGH for this application.

djb

a rohlof is still $1500, not in everyones budget (but can totally see how with one of those chain encasing plastic things, the ones that totally encase the chain, it would be prety darn cool, no gunk on chain, keeping it perfectly clean for ages....through mud, sand, rain, whatever)

bud16415

We basically have the same desired range and also feel a 42t is a good gear for us as our starting point in the center of our wide spaced cassettes. Yours being 11-36 (10) and mine 12-36 (9). I was curious as to what my triple would add to your double so I ran the numbers. Of course we both have the same granny gear a 24t so that won’t change we are both the same there.

Below are your gear inches with the 42t and below I added in the ones you would get if you had the second big ring. Of course you will get one or two higher gears with a big ring but I did the 42t,45t to see what the half step range would be. The additional gear inches are shown in ( ).

I know the ring positions are different on a double than a triple but in my case the chain line was a big factor on the (80),(92),(109) GI. Likewise on the triple the line is very straight on the center of the cassette cogs and those are some common used gear inches.

31,35,40,47,53,59,66,75,86,102

31,35,40,47,(49),53,(57),59,(63),66,(70),75,(80),86,(92),102,(109)

Without changing anything in your gearing you have now except adding the weight of a ring you could have 7 more gears and a much closer spacing. If your spacing now is sufficiently close then all you would get is the 109 GI and if you never have a need above 102 GI and you don’t have any issue making the 24t to 42t shift then the simplicity of a double outweighs the advantages of the triple.

pacificcyclist

Yes, I have thought of half stepping with a triple and was something I had done in the past. I found that in order to get 7 more gears, you would have to double shift often using your front derailleur and rear. And usually I have to bring a gear chart with me to really know which gears I should be in as my other 3 bikes do not do half-stepping. Since I don't ride this touring bike often unless on tours, it's not something you would automagically remember operating in. Besides in touring, most of the time people shift gears based on pedal feel, not some gear inches number you must be in. I found that with that setup, I rarely use what I thought was a perfect setup. I usually end up cruising with only 3 gears, 2 of which aren't even in the half-step arrangement. I would love half-stepping in the lower gears because I tend to usually spin out in too easy gears and then spin with effort in too difficult gears and wanting something in between, but you can't do that as effectively between 110BCD and 74BCD. But what we are talking about is the finesse of a triple crank.

3 years ago, I met a guy who was touring the Rockies and ended up on the ferry to the San Juan islands. He was riding a normal touring bike with 54 gears! His setup is perfect, because he's got slightly narrow 11-26 9 speed cassette giving him a 10% differential mated to a Schlump mountain drive front IGH and a SRAM Dual Drive 3 speed IGH rear hub giving the ultimate high a 111.6" and low of 19.6" with an even spacing of 10%. Even my triple mountain crank of 42/32/20 on my full suspension touring bike then was no match. I said hi and ofcourse was admiring his setup and was trying to start a conversation of where he went and how he enjoyed the Rockies. But then he goes into the gear debate between his 54 gears where he claimed he could only tour on in the Rockies as anything less would be inferior against my 24 speed bike. I sensed a gear head debate coming and kindly walked away. I didn't want nor need to embroil myself into a gears pissing contest of whose got the best setup.

This discussion seemed to be angling towards that.

djb

pacific--about the guy on the ferry-makes me think of walking up to an older German gent in France (me from a car) and him on a Rohlof equipped bike. I hadnt seen one before and asked him about it, and like your example, he went on about it and then also went on about his route, how many kilometers, and naming every town he passed through on the way to the Normandy coast (where we were).
The one sided conversation kinda ended up like you describe, all technical and whatnot, not a friendly chat between people who had toured (I mentioned the trips I had done), so I know what you mean, and so plead "guilty" to an extent with this one ;-)

I too am just too damn lazy to want a half-step, and just muddle along.

I think nun made a very good comment way back about over time being less concerned with gearing. I figure the main thing is having a low thats low enough for your load and terrain so that you dont have to push, I hate pushing.

bud16415

I won’t deny I enjoy all aspects of bicycle mechanics as they are one of the most efficient machines ever invented and always getting better. Fit and gearing is what allows everyone to customize their bike to best suit their needs and I never would comment on what someone else was riding unless they asked my opinion.

As to half step with a wide cassette I find it much simpler than half step from the old days on a 10 speed where you did have to think about what you were doing and shift the pattern. I ride my bike exactly the same as you ride yours on the 42t ring and I don’t know my gear inches when I’m on the bike I only listed them as a way to communicate on here. when someone asks me what gearing I have I know my high and low and that’s about it. If I’m riding along in say 40 and feel a need to go higher I shift in the back say I go over 4 to get to 66. And I need a touch more the shifts aren’t complicated with a STI setup. I just flip the front to the 45t and I’m there. All the shifts are single shifts some just in the front some front and back. But with a 42t to 45t shift it’s so smooth you think it’s in the back. On the big ring I do the same thing cascade across till close then if I need to go lower a half switch to 42t if I need to go up a half back up one and then switch or do them together. I never would try and go up thru the pattern like you would on a 10 speed with the huge jumps.

A lot of triples are actually one and a half step + granny and I do find that confusing if you really want to find a in between gear. Very few people use them like that I think.