Curiosity question about crank sets, for everyone over 50
 

Just a random curiosity question...

Let's say you are in the market for a nice road bike. Would you opt for one with a triple crank or keep it traditional with a double crank? Since we're all well seasoned and have aged gracefully, would a triple crank be more efficient and easier on hills?

And there is the compact double.

I'd wait until the Di2 triple version comes out.

Ah, the endless debate between three and two.

Make mine three, please.

I'll vote triple. But it may limit your choices.

I chose a triple last year [albeit a 'flat-bar' performance-type hybrid rather than a true road bike] - but I think the triple is now getting quite rare (especially as one goes upmarket, which I assume you are referring to when you state 'nice')

Let's say I had a custom steel bike built for me last year, and had to decide what sort of groupset to choose?

I chose a triple 50/39/30 with a 12-25 cassette. I'm well aware that I could have got as great or greater a range of gearing with a compact double and a big cassette. However, I like close ratios, and dislike the bigger jumps when shifting up to 30 and 32 at the back. In addition, one of the compromises involved in a compact double is a lot of shifting at the front. The overlaps between ratios means, for me, that I am often shifting at the front to find precisely the right gear. With the triple I spend much more than half my time in the middle ring, going up and down the nice tight cassette. And Shimano 105 and Ultegra triples shift like butter, there's no downside in that respect.

Thanks everyone....

It's puzzling to me, if you really want to know. See, go online to Amazon or BD or Nashbar. 90% of the bikes online (assembly required) are all triple crank. But yet go to your LBS and all the Cannondale's, Specialized, Trek, Giant, etc... are all pretty much the standard compact double crank 50-34.

+1

You can also specify the gearing to half step between gears on a triple. Not really possible on a compact.

OP: Try playing around with this gear calculator with some of the triple and compact double configurations you're considering. Find one that gives you a wide range, yet allows narrow spacing between gears if you want it (helpful when pedaling into the wind for me). Not hard to do with a triple. Really hard to do with a compact double.

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=3...UF=2099&SL=2.5

Triples are for big, long hills. If you don't have those them go for a double -- standard=53/39 or compact=50/34.

Really, this is nonsense. Obviously, if one lives in Florida, gearing scarcely matters - in fact I'm not sure I'd bother with anything other than a 48/16 singlespeed, it would be fine. But to suggest that a triple is only useful for big long hills is just wrong.

^+1

I honestly think one of the key advantages with triples over a compact double isn't the hills, but the flats on windy days or when racing ... that's where the narrower gear spacing comes in handy.

I retired to FL from Atlanta 2 years ago. When in ATL I had doubles on all my bikes. Rode from home to do laps (3 or 4 most days) around Stone Mtn.

We moved to FL because my wife didn't like me riding in ATL traffic.

I get the kind of steps I want, and avoid cross-chaining, using different than stock chainrings on 110 BC doubles but I'm giving up my top end (such as it ever was anyway) on one bike and pretty much any hill bailout below about 40 gear inches on the other.....depending on freewheels (or cassettes) used.

Another good calculator with some speed estimates at the bottom:

Mike Sherman's Bicycle Gear Calculator

Or if one is a 'returning-to-cycling-67-yr-old' and wants a 'contingency reserve'

Nice!

I was able to get a nice set up with a quirky compact double combination ... good spacing and decent range. I'll have to play around with it again, but the combo was something that no body offered and would get a sideways look if they ever asked for it.

My combinations are both with 46-36s and with 14-28 and 13-24 freewheels. Obviously lacking the range of triples but well within what I can push for very long but not for any seriously long climbing that I don't yet see in my future. Some folks will need more range both ways.

Triples are the most versatile. I use 50, 39 & 26 chainrings with a 12-27 ten speed cassette with a tighter 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27 cogset. The middle chainring does it all on flatter routes unless I'm enjoying a tailwind or I'm in a paceline. The large chainring is perfect for fast conditions, above 22 mph. The granny gear helps with steeper climbs, but is very rarely used.

Compact doubles require the use of both chainrings in the 15 to 20 mph speed range. I'd rather just shift across the cassette while riding on flat routes and then use the big or small chainrings when the riding becomes very fast or when the route is very steep.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...t/CG2005-1.jpg

I also use triples on my vintage bikes. I'll use 48, 36 and 26 chainings with a 13-24 freewheel.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...pse1d95ae4.jpg

Agreed. Except maybe for the racing bit. Not applicable to me.

Everyone talks about either end of the range, but I spend 90-95% of my time in the mid-range. So all my bikes have gearing optimized for that 16-20 mph range on the flats. For me, that means either a standard double or a triple (both have a 39 ring) and a 12-23 out back. Gives me around six gears in that range on the 39--19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14. I loves me my 18t cog in the wind.

With a compact, I'm cross-chained in both rings in that range.

My current bike has a triple. I don't know of a single hill on the routes I commonly do that requires it. (I have a 34-tooth rear cog, so I'm geared pretty low anyway). I can climb at 5 mph in the middle ring okay. But, if I thought I needed it, I'd get it. On the tandem, we have a couple of hills that we always go up in the little ring.

Well, it's clear that there is not RIGHT answer for this question that meets the needs of every rider. Indeed, the very reason that triples, doubles, and compact doubles exist is that there is a huge range of variables to contend with. And to further complicate the matter, the cassette choice is a very important factor in the question.

We all have out own opinion for what is right, but I dare say I don't think anyone has asked the OP about his typical riding conditions. Is it flat, rolling, or really hilly? Is he a solo or group rider? Is he a masher or spinner? The point is, the only thing we know for sure is that he is over 50 and wants to know if there is a "best" choice for a crank. TMI is "Too Much Information." I think we are dealing with TLI. But even given all the information, there would be some differing opinions since there is "more than one way to skin this cat" (sorry if I offended cat lovers!)

So I think the best way to answer this question is to provide the pros and cons of each choice. I'll start with my 2 cents.

Without knowing your typical terrain and riding habits and goals, it's difficult to discuss possible cassette choices. Regarding cranks, IMHO a compact crank is a great choice for most terrain. If you are in a very hilly/mountainous area, a standard triple would seem to make sense. But here again, I'm just "jumping to conclusions" based on some assumptions. It's best to go to the source and get input.

What are your concerns? Where are you having problems? On the climbs? How often?

While there is no "single right answer" I think with more input from the OP, the collective BF brain can provide some valuable insight as to his alternatives.

I've got one road bike with a triple and one with a compact double. I really like the compact double. Possibly it's that I've turned into a bit of a weight weenie, possibly that I've gotten into decent enough shape that I don't really need a smaller gear than 34/27 around here, where it is very hilly but most of the climbs are sharp but short. I used to feel I needed the triple for a bailout, but now I find it convenient to shift up and stand and just get it over with. There's very little finding just the right gear for pounding along on a flat at 20mph, so I'm shifting from a small ring on the climb to the big ring for the descent regardless. Or maybe I'm just a weight weenie. :)

So far all of my road bikes have traditional doubles.

My commuter road bike is 53/42 x 13-26 seven speed. This gearing works for all my commuting and around-town errand riding.

My aluminum road bike is 53/39 x 13-21 seven speed. This gearing works for all the weekend rides I do. On 10% grades I have to stand. I can't really climb a 15% grade of any distance - fortunately, those are not common here.

My steel road road bike is 53/42 x 12-17 six speed. This is limiting, great on flats but 10% is a struggle. So I'm building a second rear wheel with 14-26 six speed, that will be my climbing wheel.

However, I am slowly building a (partly) carbon road bike and it will have a triple! 53/42/30 x 12-23 ten speed. I am hopeful it will be my Swiss Army knife bike, able to do anything. It will have a cassette so I'll be able to tinker with gearing more easily.

ALL deraillers SUCK. Crooked chainlines at cruise speed, loopy double shifts, poor shifting on uphills, etc etc
I bought a ROHLOFF 14 for my heavyweight. Now 48/16T ... 23 to 120 GI. It has 2000 miles, 5 century days.
My direct gear is at 81.5 GI, which makes 19/ 21 mph cruising rather nice. On 2 of my centuries I had tailwinds for 20/ 30
miles where I was rolling 24/ 27 mph, no peloton required. Actually on one of them I was where the TdF pros were racing and I stopped to wait for them to go by twice. I went 3 miles farther. ha

Rohloff gears have absolutely perfect jumps. Hills are easier than with my old bikes also.
They don't fit on CF bikes so tooo bad.

Triples. We have longish to long climbs. I like having just the right gear without a lot of fooling around shifting. Tight spacing is good, too. My fave single bike gearing is 52-39-26 and 12-25.