A new way to shift a triple
 

Use your gears.

Rather than only using your smallest chain ring as a bailout, I propose using it in the same way you use your other two chain rings.

For those of you with doubles, during a climb, do you put it on the big ring and work your way to the biggest cog on the back before dumping down to the smaller chain ring? Of course not! Nor should a triple be shifted in this same manner.

My first road bike came with a triple crank. I heard all the negative comments about a triple and so vowed to use it only in desperate situations (as a bailout). I would mash up the hills until my heart rate went through the roof, then I would bail out to the triple and slowly finish the climb.

After using this technique for a year, I had a revelation. I thought, if I am going to carry all the extra gears around with me, I may as well use them. When approaching a steep, longish hill, I would start out on the middle ring and about 1/2 way up the rear cassette. Once my cadence dropped, I would then shift to the triple chain ring and would shift one cog smaller (which is just a slightly easier gear than when on the middle chain ring). I would then work my way up the rear cassette as needed while keeping my cadence at a consistent rate. Amazing. I was climbing hills faster and at a lower heart rate! Once I neared the top, I could do a quick shift to the middle ring and power over the hill and begin my descent as I shifted to the big ring.

Another thing to keep in mind. A triple's middle ring is usually a 42 tooth, whereas a traditional double's smaller chain ring is usually a 39 tooth.

Have any other triple-users out there experienced this same revelation?

I have a 53,42,32 / 21,19,17,16,15,13,12. I consider it defeat to use the 32 ring.

I personally enjoyed shifting mine off my bike and onto Craig's List.

It all depends on your gearing, the terrain, and the corssover points. I would suggest that you put it in the gear that allows you to maintain the appropriate cadence. Given that there is often overlap between gear ratios from ring to ring, that may be on the small ring or the middle ring.

The only caveot would be that many triples do not shift well under pressure, so if you know you'll need the little ring on a climb, you're better off going to it earlier rather than later.

But if you know, you won't need the middle ring, on a climb, then there's little sense to shift to small ring, if you have the appropriate ratio available on the middle ring.

FWIW, a few months before I moved to Colorado and started riding mountains, I anticipated the need for a triple. Being an engineer, I knew that a 52/42/30 was an old fashioned setup that forced the user to shift into the little ring sooner than needed. That's all that Campy offered to go with my Campy 10 drivetrain, so I bought FSA cranks with a more sensible 53/39/30 and later changed that to a 53/39/28 to produce the same gear ratio with a 28/25 that Shimano users get with a 30/27.

The normal shifting pattern requires a 2-3 cog (smaller) shift anytime you shift to a smaller chainring. With that in mind, I do something similar to what you describe, but only if I'm climbing a mountain, not a hill. I've only shifted into the little ring on a hill in the last few miles of a a very long ride. When shifting to the little ring, I only do it when I know that the middle ring won't provide an adequate low gear. You don't want to shift too early and be using the little ring with either of the two smallest cogs. That's overdoing it. The middle ring and next to largest cog is really the largest that should be used for extended periods, due to the extreme chainline. I'll use that gear (39/23) and only shift to the little ring when it becomes inadequate. Approaching a 10-mile mountain climb, I know that I'll need the little ring and might drop to the little ring when the 39/21 becomes inadequate.

What some users don't realize is that the middle ring on a triple is positioned almost as far right as the big ring on a double, so it should be treated as such, with regard to chainline.

Just last year, I switched to a compact 50/34 with an 11-25. I've lost my two lowest gear ratios, but I've gained enough strength to get by without them. Occasionally, it does force me to pedal out of the saddle in the 34/21, when I can't generate enough cadence, pedaling seated in the 34/25.

This is the same attitude I had for the first year of triple ownership. Then one day I said, "You know what, screw it, I am going to use it."

I now only consider reaching the top of the hill 2nd as defeat. Reaching the top of a climb first, no matter which gearing you use, is triumph!

What are the hills like in Ohio?

Gearing should be used to regulate cadence, not to regulate effort.

(PS - personally, I don't like to shift the front ring in the middle of a climb...)

In SE OH the hills are plentiful. They are generally in the 15-20% range, but usually short, around a 1/2 - 3/4 mile in length.

Our hilly centuries can have 10K+ feet of climbing.

Euthanasia before triple.

My intentions are not to promote the purchase of triple cranksets, but rather to encourage those that already have them to go ahead and use all the gears they are carrying.

It is OK to use them, it doesn't mean you are wussy, but it just might make you faster on the hills, maybe, if you don't drop the chain.

To the OP

Your revelation is simply what experienced riders were doing decades ago, but it's less important now when you have 9 or 10 "speeds" in the back. In the old days, with 5, 6, 7 speeds, you could only make maximum use of your available, usable gears by double shifting across the range (and the best use of that was as a half-step setup plus granny). To initially memorize the steps in the best order, we would calculate all of our gears and make up a little table of them to mount or stick on the handlebar for quick reference as to the proper sequence - and we would shift both front and rear as needed as we moved through the range for whatever the road or wind conditions were in order to maintain the same cadence.

You can still do that, but nowadays, it's not really necessary. You already have so many gears available with each front ring that you can simply use the front to choose the range of gears appropriate for climbing, flat no wind, flat with wind, downhill or whatever. The whole system becomes more like what my motorcross motorcyle had when I was young: A hi and a lo range.

I use a 50-40-30 racing triple now with 9 in back. Gears are so closely-spaced that there is almost never a need to do a double shift to maintain a given cadence unless I also happen to be changing to a higher or lower range for the conditions.

As you ride the same bike more and more, you eventually just know where to go with your gears. For example, often, I just know that I get the gear I want just by shifting the front and keeping the same one at the back. I just do everything instinctively by feel now.

As to triple vs compact double, I don't give a flying frig. I have the gears I want and I passed the stage where I had to impress my friends when I was 8 years old.

I have been slowly coming over to this way of thinking, that I should actually use that thing and let cadence be my guide, instead of going up hills in a low cadence.

What I dislike about the triple (or at least my triple) is the location of the crossover from the big to middle ring. Right at 20 mphish at high 90s cadence, with only one gear of overlap, and no trim. It's a busy area, lots of chain ring shifting. That is why the next bike will likely be a double.

A triple is a bailout gear. When needed its great and can save you from grinding to the top of a climb but 99% of the time its not going to get you to the top first. If so maybe its time to find a new group to ride with.

that's new how?

Ah, Shimano users. That may be why so many of you can't rest until you've tried a compact double. You can't trim much, and that could certainly be a disadvantage with a triple.

There's nothing magical about cadence, or there is, depending on your viewpoint. There are people who are happy to power themselves through wind and over everything, and then there are more savvy riders who keep their reserves up by playing it smart, that is, by using their gears to maintain as close to the same pressure as possible on the pedals (which usually translates into maintaining a certain cadence, but without actually having an exact number in mind). You can usually go farther and longer that way. That's what I'm after... farther and longer, rather than faster. If I'm approaching a significant hill, I don't see the small ring as a bailout, rather, I see it as choosing an appropriate range of gears that are at the lower end. It doesn't mean I will necessarily be using both the granny gear and the largest cog at the back. That way, I don't burn myself off unecessarily, plus, it's easier on the knees. Life is short and knees are very fragile when you look at the longer term. I'm 55 now, been riding forever, and I hope to keep it that way as long as I can.

Hills. We don't have mountains, unless I missed the memo.

Exactly. I know people who just consider it part of their options and use it accordingly.

Really? Is that why we now have compact cranks? Everyone needed a permanent bailout?

Pro riders using compact cranks leads me to believe that lower gearing can get you to the top faster. To achieve lower gearing one can use a compact crank, a triple, or stick a huge cog on the back.

If your bike came with a triple, use the lower gears, spin faster, and arrive at the top of the hill faster and less fatigued.

old way of thinking:
"I prefer lower gearing than my traditional double offers, I will switch to a triple and use all the gears."

new way:
"Oh no, I have a triple, I must never let anyone catch me using it or I will forever be ridiculed. I will only use it if it is the only alternative to walking."

newer way:
"I have a triple and I am going to use the gears to maintain cadence up this hill. Wow, I am at the front of the group, the same group that used to pull ahead of me, and I am not nearly as winded as I used to be. It must be beneficial to use this triple for purposes other than bailouts. I must spread the word to other triple users so that they too can experience this effective climbing technique."

It is new in regards to recent attitudes towards the usage of a triple chain ring, i.e. bailout gear only.

Don't worry about that comment. Many triples have a 42 for the middle gear. That's obviously not because people running triples like to mash. It's because the lower gearing is already available in the small ring, so the middle ring can go up a little, which is also why I don't think it's anything new to use your small ring frequently. Otherwise, those guys with a 42 would be mashing it up everything until they decide to bail out on a far smaller gear.

When you look at the bikes (other than touring bikes), and you look at the marketing, it's easy to see why today's younger generation of riders and older newbies think like this.

Yeah, I noticed all them folks climbing little Ohio rollers this weekend spinning like crazy and sending their heart rates into the red zone while in the little ring of their triples....as I (the fat fred) passed them in my 50/21. Trying to keep a high rpm in a low gear when climbing is only useful to those with some minimal level of base fitness and leg strength. It just blows up those who don't.

I just use a single 42t up front.

Looking at where you live, I'm not surprised.

Look, I've been told by all the groovedogs on here that I'm a big puthy if I shift down into the granny ring. Somehow, I am learning to live with that, and I now seem to recover faster on hills that I wasn't able to just roll right over in the middle.

I live at the top of a very very steep hill. And I am 50. The hill is steep enough that I shif into the small front ring at the base of the hill and can comfortably get to my house at the top. I could certainly make the climb with a double, my knees are happier with the tripple. YMMV.:thumb:

Dubious.

This kind of simulates the behavior you'd get on a 39 tooth ring, so good job being more efficient!

For me, I'm able to climb much faster while keeping a lower RPM, but not so much as to mash it. It's a better balance between cardio and leg strength for me; everytime I've tried high cadence climbing, I just go slow and blow up my HR.