Pukeskywalker

I've searched around and haven't seen this question posed.

As a money-saving tactic, I've got an old SRAM rival double running a tripleizer chainring. It works are rides well.

However I'm considering using the crankset on a bike tour. Would you be confident using the granny gear on a tripleizer chainring, assuming a 3+ month tour - with hills and an extra 25-30lb of gear?

Thanks everybody.

fietsbob

just make sure the bolts are not coming loose.

FBinNY 

Short answer --- YES.

No reason to worry any more with a triplizer than with any triple, or any bolt on chainring, for that matter. Rings wear out over time, and ONLY fail because one or more bolts are loose or missing.

Pukeskywalker

thanks

pressed001

I've been wondering this myself. Good to know they should hold up.

Another point with the tripleizer: why is everything going the way of two speed up front and more in back? From what I understand, I have way more gears in back by adding just one more up front, so why does everyone want a compact double nowadays?

I sell bike parts as a hobby so I have a bunch of cranks in storage. Most of them are 130 BCD 53/39. Most important to me is a proper crank arm length. I just so happen to not have a triple with this correct length. So, in order to save some cash and hassle, I ordered one of these tripleizers. It seems to be an amazingly easy and practical solution. So now I can turn any of my 130 bcd cranks into a triple, giving me more gear ratios, whilst allowing me to run a smaller cassette in back.

Just makes sense to me.

Drew Eckhardt 

SKU reduction for increased profits.

Only selling 2 rings means they don't have to make another set of cranks in various lengths, triple front derailleurs, and perhaps different left mechanisms.

More cogs means one cassette works for more people.

With 8 speed Exadrive Campagnolo sold 11-18, 11-21, 11-23, 11-26, 12-19, 12-21, 12-23, 13-21, 13-23, 13-26, and 14-26.

Now 11-23 11 cogs gives you the spacing, high-gear, and low-gear of 11-18, 11-21, 11-23, 12-23, 13-21, and 13-23. 12-25 covers 12-19, 12-21, 12-23, 13-23, 13-26, and 14-26 (apart from the junior roll-out restriction). That's 2 combinations not 11.


Triples have always had an image problem and the bike companies do better pushing compact doubles.

In fact, the top groups from Shmano and Campagnolo are ONLY available as compact doubles with 4-arm 110mm BCD cranks although you can still have a choice of rings.

I started riding a triple in 1997 when I realized 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 meant I could have both a 13-19 straight block for the plains and low like 42x28 for mountains.

The same thing held with middle age spread and 10 cogs in back.

I figured with 10 cogs 13-26 and historic riding weight under 140 pounds the small ring wouldn't do anything for me, but discovered I could climb mountains seated at an endurance pace which is great for staying fresh at the start of a 100+ mile ride.

FBinNY 

I suspect that you're confusing what marketers are telling people they should have and OEMs want to sell, with what people actually want. The industry is driven by new bike sales, and those of us who are happy with the bikes we have need to be convinced to change to keep things moving along.

Happy with 10s? But 11s has so much more to offer.

However, the reality is that compact does make sense for many. I set my bikes up up in ways that would be called compact almost 30 years ago, when it became hard to find freewheels and cassettes that started at 13 or 14t. But I still use 3 rings for touring.

Don't let marketers tell you what you need. Instead, decide on the gear range you want, and look for cassette and chainring combinations that will work for you. If you don't need the high gears that 53/12 or so produce, consider downsizing both or all three rings to match the desired high. For my part, I'd rather keep the tighter steps of a smaller cassette, and use a granny to get low down where I want it, but that's me.

HillRider

+1 I have triples on all of my bikes as they give me the really low gears I sometimes need without leaving huge gaps in the cassette gearing. The extreme example of these gaps is the current fashion for 1X drivetrains with a single chainring and a 10 or 11-speed super wide range cassette like 11x36 or even 11x44. The enormous interior gearing steps in these cassettes would drive me nuts on a road bike.

As to tripilizers, the only disadvantage to the current Shimano's is they have a BCD that limits the granny ring to 30T.

pressed001

That is practical from a business standpoint. However, aren't they meanwhile alienating a significant portion of their clients?



Exactly my point. So if I want a Dura Ace 11 speed group but a triple crank, I have to run an different left mech, front DR, and crank.

This is what led me to finding the tripleizer. I am searching for a good triple crankset, used or new, and it is not easy. I want a quality, light weight, triple crankset with the right crank arm length. I missed a DA 7803 by maybe a few hours as someone beat me to it. Then I was looking at a Rotor 3D+ Triple which is just beautiful. But that cost is just nuts at over 450 bones for the crankset and rings.


I like the interchangeability of the new 110 BCD cranksets. As, like you said, the rings can be easily swapped. My only question would be: is that 110 BCD combined with a 53 tooth chainring going to be stiff, or is flex going to become apparent? Plus your bottom end will not be low enough.



I could not agree more, and this is exactly why I think the triple crankset just makes sense.



Exactly what I have determined.


I ride a lot of flat, so I wouldn't need the granny gear that often. But it would be nice to have. I could then always stay at my desired cadence.


I use a 53/39 right now with a 11/32. The ratios are way too far apart. I think a 52/36 with a 12/26 would fit the bill quite well for my daily commute, but for my weekend rides, I would need better gearing.



It is funny that you say that. When the new shimano 1x11 systems came out, I started quite a shi*-storm in the MTB forums over that point exactly. But I am a climber, I postulate that most of the guys using the 1xXX stuff are downhill junkies.

pressed001

For anyone interested in these Tripleizers, here is a link:

XXcycle - Plateau Stronglight Intermediaire porteur triple 130/74 - en

If anyone else has another source, please post!

pressed001

I found a couple good articles about the triple.

The first is pro-triple (link) which pretty much corroborates what you gents have already said. I find it funny how he ends the article. It seems as though the world is no longer okay...

The next article is against the triple (link).

These are a couple good reads. I will let you all extrapolate your own conclusions on the matter.

For me, the triple makes sense. I do however understand that for the pro, they don't make sense. You have your course and you set up accordingly. I, however, am not a pro, just like 95% of people who purchase bicycles. And yeah, I could afford a new compact crank and a bunch of spare cassettes in which to swap out depending on what kind of riding I want to do on any given day. But why would I want to go through the trouble when there is one simple solution which requires one simple cassette.

I just love what ding-bat-dilly, coach Rob says about how it is better for you to push hard up those hills and even get off and walk the bike up when it gets too hard... Right... keep walking Rob.

JohnDThompson 

Sure, why not? The classic touring crank is the TA "Cyclotouriste," where both the middle and inner rings are bolted to the outer ring. Here it is on my wife's loaded touring bike:

cyccommute 

Both articles are from a racer's point of view. I find that one of the funnier...both odd and amusing...aspects of bicycling. Most people aren't going to race bikes. Most people pay for their own equipment. Many racers don't pay for their equipment but component companies make and market their components towards the racing crowd instead of the larger majority of people who could benefit from a triple's range.

That's only one of his ding-bat ideas. He reminds me of my former Marine drill instructor wrestling/PE coach in junior high and seems to be cut from the same "get out there and go until you can't go anymore" school of training. He completely misses about 40 years of training research.

My favorite part of his post is

He completely misses the problem with giant hole in the compact double's shift pattern. Say, for example, that a rider is riding along in 50/21 gear with a gain ratio of 4.6 (at 90 rpm, that's about 17mph) and they need to downshift at the bottom of a climb. If they just dump off onto the inner ring, they drop from a 4.6 gain ratio to a 3.1 gain ratio. But they would have to slow to around 12 mph in order to continue at 90 rpm or, more likely, they would have to increase their rpms to 130 to 140 rpm to maintain the speed. That's not easily sustainable. And it would feel like your chain fell off.

The other alternative is to start upshifting. But to reach the same gain ratio, the rider would have to make 5 upshifts to the 34/14 gear. That's a lot of fiddling if you are in the middle of a race. It's a lot of (unnecessarily) fiddling if you aren't racing.

Now compare that to the triple that Coach Rob poo-poos. First he purposefully picked a fairly bad example but I'll work with it. From the start, the triple has a much higher range. The 52/11 would allow for 34mph at 90 rpm vs 30 mph of at the same rpm for the compact crank. I'd put that as a bonus for racing. Second, if you are riding long in the 52/21 gear (crosschaining a little) at the same speed and rpm as above and you need to downshift for a hill, moving from the outer ring to the inner ring would require a increase in rpm to maintain the speed but the increase is to 105 rpm which is fairly easy to maintain. A single upshift would place the gearing right back to the same rpm and speed.

Here's a better comparison of the same ratios that can be manipulated to see what effect rpm has.

Additionally, where Coach Rob sees holes and duplications, I see opportunity. A rider could stay in the middle range longer without having to shift up to the outer ring and then the transition isn't as abrupt. If a rider held to the middle range until they reached the 14 tooth cog, jumping to the outer ring is that large of a jump.

Finally, for the rest of us having a triple and "extremely low gears" isn't a sign of defeat nor an admission of weakness. It's an admission of reality. I'm not paid to ride a bike and I can't do it for 8 hours per day except on rare occasion...about every 2 years. And on those rare occasions when I do have a chance to do it for 8 hours per day for weeks at a time, I'm carrying all the stuff I need to sleep, eat, keep warm, and keep my bike functional. I'm not racing around the countryside on a 16 lb wonder bike with a car totting my gear nor someone preparing my meals. When the road turns upward, I need those low gears to haul all of that stuff to the top of the hill. And, honestly, he isn't even close to an "extremely low gear". I'm using a 20/36 and often wish I had something lower.

fietsbob

IRD /'Soma' sells a 110bcd. TA makes 130/135.. Chainrings

TA uses 7075-T6 premium Heat treated aluminum.

pressed001

I completely understand this. I find that I must shift much more when using a 50/34 compact crankset. And like your example, dropping to the smaller ring and having to shift up a bunch of gears in the back isn't exactly simple and isn't something I like to do a lot.

Thanks for the link to the gear calculator. I like the visual representation they use, it's great.

From what I have read, it seems like the majority of cyclists appreciate a triple and feel that it brings them a whole lot of function and value. So, it seems to me that no longer are the engineers or cyclists at Campagnolo or Shimano making decisions regarding their product lines. It seems like the SUV driving accountants and administrators are calling the shots.

With this in mind, I wonder if it has even mattered as far as sales are concerned. Perhaps the triple is done for. And maybe I should start stocking up on those 7803's and 6703's whilst they are still out there.

fietsbob

even More Giant a hole just hasn't gained favor _ the single chainring with a Bail Out gear ..

though I get that out of my Mountain drive 150% drop with the crankarm turning faster than the chainring

thru a reduction gear . chain stays in place .

the wolf tooth single and 11 speed cassettes 12-42t have moved into the MTB Must haves It seems ..

HillRider

I don't agree that the majority of cyclists appreciate a triple, too many of them think it gives them the wrong "image". The excuse that triples don't shift as well as doubles is often trotted out to justify their unwillingness to use them. That said, there are still many of us who see the value and utility of triples both in providing closely spaced gears and a very wide overall gear range. No double (or worse, a 1X) can do that. Shimano is reacting to what the market seems to be telling them, Campy has long since stopped caring about recreational and touring riders and SRAM is fixated on super wide doubles and 1X road and MTB stuff and has never made a triple anything.

As to available Shimano road triples, if you are going to stock up, find a couple of NOS FC-5703 cranks. Yeah, they are "only" 105 but they have a 130/74 BCD which allows down to a 24T granny ring. The FC-6703 uses a "tripilizer middle ring with a 92 mm BCD that limits you to a 30T granny.

davidad

Some of shimano's triples use the same system to save money.

cyccommute 

1x systems are even dumber in my opinion than compact doubles. They may have their place for race situations but they are hardly a good choice for riding in a range of terrains. You can have a good low gear or a good high gear but you can't have both. That's ignoring, of course, the complete incompatibility of the road shifter with mountain derailer or the inability of a road derailer to handle a 42 tooth rear cog.

bikemig 

I run triples on almost all of my bikes. I don't really need them in central IA but I like to find hills to ride in when possible. It also allows me to run a smaller freewheel or cassette in the rear than I would if simply running a double. I have one bike set up with a compact. I like it but 16 teeth is a big jump. I may switch that bike over to a shimano road triple.

Tripleizers are also available (and very useful) for old school cranks like campagnolo (144 bcd on the outer rings) and a stronglight 93 (which IMHO is a beautiful crank with a 122 bcd):

About Triplizers - Red Clover Components

bikemig 

I picked a shimano 105 triple up last year precisely for this reason.

fietsbob

TA could & I rode with someone who did Cal coast tour on a 50-28 .. now you can build them with a White VBC.

though with 12t small cogs you hardly need the 50.


[different bike than you guys carry on about, 16" wheel, 3 speed, big chainring, Mountain drive crank .. a 50t acts like a 20t.]

pressed001

I received my Stronglight Tripleizer yesterday in the mail. The install was not so easy as turning screws, but I managed.

First off, the stock 53/39 DA 7800 crankset needed to be machined. The tabs had to be machined flat.





Then I installed the new chainrings. If anyone orders these please remember to buy a new chainring bolt set for the 74mm 3rd ring.

I then had to install one drive size BB spacer.

Next was removing a couple chain links and fine tuning the FD. The FD setup was not easy, as usual. I had to bend it a bit to get it perfect. The setup is not spot on for OE Shimano 3 speed cranksets, so it aint a simple swap.

Regretfully I have not yet test driven it. But it shifts good so far and looks great.

Here is a comparison of my previous gearing ratios and my new ratios. What a difference!

I purchased the tripleizer from here if anyone is wondering.

fietsbob

Others made a cut out window/slot to be more slip on of un re-machined crank arms ,

or off set the 3rd ring mount out of phase so the 5 bolts were between the 5 for the outer chainrings.

any how nicely done..

pressed001

That off-set sounds like a win-win idea. Thanks for the complement. The flanges were pretty easy to remove with the belt-sander. It took less than 10 minutes.

I took it today for a test drive. It is just okay. The jury-rig job I did on the FD is good in that it shifts well between the gears. Only problem is that the 3rd ring is a little too far spaced from the middle ring. If I shift it into the 3rd whilst lolly-gagging, the chain falls in between the two gears and I lose drive. I then have to shift back up into middle gear, then downshift into 3rd again.

There were 5 spacers included in the 3rd ring bolt set that I ordered. They have to be installed, otherwise the bolts are too long and the spacing is too short. I am wondering now if I can machine the spacers to be smaller by about 0.4mm. I will also look to see if XXcycle has perhaps an 11 speed bolt kit that would include thinner spacers... :/