Check it:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadin...r/gearing.html

Triples are for mountains, not hills. There is a big differance.

A lot of triples (in flat areas) get sold because people thaink that more is better. You need to get the right gearing for your terrain and riding style. For mountains, triples are great, you get serious climbing gears, serious top end gears for coming down the other side (you lose this with a compact), and a tight cassette for everything.

In a flat or just hilly area, a double would be good for most people.

When I lived in Pasadena I used the big ring, middle, and small ring every week. Now I am on the east coast, I have never shifted to the small ring. But I may head back west......

Probably at least a 27, maybe a 28. That will make a very big difference coming from a 23. In my racing days I had a 12-21 and almost never used the 21. Now I have a 12-25 and use the 25 much more, but don't need anything bigger.

To the OP, if you need a triple, get one. But if you don't (and based on your experience, you don't), then why have one? Just run a good old 52/53-39 with the rear cogset of your choice. Go to a 12-27 if you feel you need it. You'll be just fine down to 5-7mph. Below that it becomes harder to ride in a straight line or hold momentum anyway, so I'm not sure why so many people feel they need to go lower. Stand up, use that upper body, and crank that sucker!

This is a good point. At some point, it's just not going to be any more efficient.

One thing to consider about extremely hilly areas is that the compact double may help you on the uphill end by giving you a couple of lower gears, but it also subtracts a couple of gears on the high end. That means you will spin out more quickly on the downhills.

Living in a hilly area (Kansas City) I approach the question this way: how low a gear do I need for the biggest hills I am likely to see? If that gear is as high or higher than 39/25, or at worst, 39/27, then a standard double is fine. That preserves my high gears for downhills.

But if I need more help than a 39/27, then I have to look at either a compact crank or a triple. From there, it is a question of how much help I need, because the triple potentially gives me lower gears than can be achieved with a compact double. The lowest you can really get on a compact double is 34/27, whereas a triple gives you the potential to go all the way down to 30/27.

As for shifting ease, I have ridden a triple for years without any front chainring shifting problems. I think if triples are properly adjusted, shifting isn't an issue. Typically a triple weighs 4 ounces more than a double.

I take it you've never ridden a compact setup? You can actually cruise along at 18-19 mph quite easily in the 34T ring. And.....the 50T ring is a great size. I can even climb some stuff in it, and spend MUCH more time in it than I used to with a 53T ring.

Unless you're riding a loaded touring bike, or riding up 17%+ grades all the time, a compact crank is a great upgrade.....but, if I already had a triple, I probably wouldn't change it out. However, if I were going to buy a new bike, I would go with a compact setup over a triple.

One argument for a triple is that it affords you the ability to go for a narrower range on the back. For instance, I have a 9 speed bike that's 52-42-30 on the front, and 12-26 on the back. I don't feel as though I really need the 30-26 gear. And most of the time I'm not going to need the 52-12 gear either, so I'm going to put a 13-23 cluster on the back and ride with gears I'll actually use and likely have more choices than some 10-speed setups. If I want to go faster still I can always get a 12-21 or 11-21 without worrying about big hills still.

I've always had a triple, from my first road bike, and always will. If your first bike was a triple and you have no appreciation for it, my guess is, you don't need it. If you change your mind later, it could be that you need two bikes :)

You always need one more bike.

When I was younger I uses a 53 x 39. Got older got a triple. I could never quite find the gear ratios I wanted with the triple. Just seemed to be to many gear choices which worked out to be about the same ratios. Got in better phyisical shape just putting in the miles on the triple. I though I would always want a triple. I now have a compact double 10 speed and love it. Less choices of gears but each shift brings the change I want and need. Besides, when I bonked on the triple I could not remimber which chain ring I was in anyway.

I've got Veloce and Centaur doubles (53/39) on my road bikes. The vintage Fuji has a 6-speed freewheel with 13-34 cogs that lets me tackle anything in the hilly NE corner of Iowa. I have a 12-32 cassette on my 9-speed that is more than enough for me.

have not read this thread, but can succinctly answer the original question: NOT.

Iowa has hills?

i would think a compact would be the better choice, especially if you like hills and if you have bad knees. though i'm using a 53T double, i've been thinking about a compact crank for my 9 speed setup. i don't have a bad left knee yet.. but it's not that great either. want to do some hills later on.. but with my current setup.. it's very stressful on my knee.

When was the last time you wished for a 53-11? How many times have you said I'm glad I have a triple?

so let me get this straight.. so if i am currently using a 53-39 + 12-25 setup, then I would be able to go faster with a 50-34 + 11-23 on both high speed and low speed with more easy of climbing a hill?

too bad they don't have the comparison between 53-39 + 12-25 vs. 50-34 + 12-25. my guess is the 50-34 + 12-25 would create a slower speed then my current setup, correct; but will be easier for me to spin up the hills with my weak knee?

NO. Look at it again. A 12-27 with your existing 39 gives you a lower (easier) gear than a 34 compact with a 11-23. The difference is small, but significant. Surprised, hey? You do lose a tiny bit of top end without the 11t in the rear, but it is very small.

Again, I would just go get a 27 rear and be done with it.

i've thought about getting a 12-27 for my current 53/39 setup, but just wondered which would be easier for my knees to pedal up the hill with?

53-39 + 12-27 or 50-34 + 11-23? i'm sure getting the 12-27 will be more cost effective and save money.. but how about in the long run?

Again, a 39/27 is easier than a 34/23. So, just getting the 12-27 is you best bet. Unless you wanted both the 12-27 AND that 34 inner.

I know it unfashionable, but I rather like a triple. Compact doubles, however, are stroke of genius from a marketing standpoint. They seem to work well enough, as well. I like the high end of having the 52 ring and the option to get low. I have never really been too confused by the gearing options or had much trouble with the shifting, but maybe I have been lucky. I have seen a few compacts that look suspiciously like my triple missing the big ring, but probably they were home made jobs.

I have found it useful to look at an on-line gear calculator in making my drive train purchases, BTW. Sheldon Brown's is super: http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

I rode my bike up and down the street in a comfortable gear to get the feel and used that as a reference as I looked at the chart (this number of gear inches feels like x, etc.). It also helped me devise a "shifting strategy" that I like.

I think most newer triple shift fine, at least I've never had any problems with any of mine. Fast, on target, etc... Doubles and compacts are very popular, but triples work great for many riders.

John

[QUOTE=53-11_alltheway]I've ridden a triple on two occassions. I can't figure out how anyone can stand how the shifter sometimes skips over the middle ring. Doubles are more fool proof in this respect.


This has never happened with my triple, never, not even once. Was your's adjusted properly? were you shifting it properly? It may take a little practise for some people?

Ride up around the Dubuque area and see what ya think.

Exactly. Another similar point would be if its a worn-out ringset or an obsolete or cheap rampless ring set.

I was having a lot of trouble recently with getting my front derailer tuned so I could shift without dropping the chain. I finally gave up and retired the old Sugino crank with steel rings.

The new crankset has gorgeous shift-assisting ramps and pins. Now, without any adjustment from the old crank, all of my shifts are flawless, smooth and close to silent.

I've been riding a Campy Centaur triple for a couple of years and have never had a problem with the shifting. It is as clean and precise as my old 53-39 double.

At my age, I don't have enough ego left to worry about how unstudly I look with my triple. When I get up to Wolfpen Gap in North Georgia, I am glad to have it. I also don't have to do all that multiple shifting my friends have to do with their new compact cranksets. They just seem like more trouble than they are worth.

The biggest problem I have is the missing gear ranges in the middle where I do most of my riding. In order to get to the gears I want to ride in using a compact, I would have to do too much cross chaining.