And to further throw fuel on the fire, SRAM doesn't even offer a triple option.

Your kidding! you learn someting new every day.

Not only am I not kidding that they don't offer a triple in their road line, but they just introduced a mountain double group, XX. Double crank, wider 10 speed cassette. 11-32 and 11-36 options. Conveniently compatible with their road group.

umd did not use a triple for Everest Challenge. In fact, he used a standard double. Therefore, triples are not necessary. QED.

Like I said somewhere back early in this shindig, and I am not saying its a coverall this is just my opinion.
I like a triple because it allows me, as a recreational cyclist To use the same bike for pretty much any road condition without changing a cassette. But that is my bike. What I dont like is when the wanna be racer/poser, not to be confused with an amatuer racer sneers at my bike because I have a triple. I think that a compact is a compromise in gearing choices, it sacrafices the high end or intermediate gearing to get a lower gear than a standard, I would rather lug the extra weight.
When people look at an athletes rig and start comparing it to thiers, well thats just silly. Its comparing apples to dohnuts.
Wouldnt you laugh at Alberto Contrador if he showed up to the tour with a triple? I know I would.
As far as your young ladie cat2 climbing may not be her gig either. It takes a supreem athlete to be a great all arounder, or a good drug supply ( kidding)

add, " for umd", and I'm all for it.

But then they also crush you on the descent. So what's the point?

There it is right there! Exactly! why do they not put out enough power? Because it is not available. why is it not available? Because they have not spent enough time and commitment training and dieting. So if the cyclist still wants to climb that particular mountain. they have 2 choices;
1) Stop eating and start training and hope that they have the genetics to achive this goal

2) Employ a mechanical advantage, a smaller gear ratio or in my case a gasoline engine.

I wonder what a pro from 40 years ago would say about our bikes today. I can see one saying. " why have two ring up front you already have ten in the back, how many do you need?" but I guess that is superficial because they had 39 /52 or 53 and didnt run 25 tooth cassettes.

Oh, I agree. I mean, what someone chooses for their own use based on their own preferences is fine with me. If someone wants to use a triple, it really makes no difference to me.

I at least would never sneer at someone for using a triple. Maybe on bikeforums but not in real life anyway. And for what it's worth, I started with a triple.

Everything is a compromise in some form. You have to sacrifice something to get something else in return. Otherwise we would all live in palaces, and not have to work.

Actually I do believe that triples are sometimes used int he Giro at least... :innocent:

Doesn't mean it is necessary, just that it can be beneficial.

Of course this is the crux of the matter. The lower gear allows the rider to comfortably ride up a steep grade at a lower power, and resulting in a lower speed. A rider with more power available can still "spin" up the same climb, they just go faster.

They would laugh at us for even having derailers :D

Ok, maybe not 40 years ago. But there has still been a general trend toward lower gears. IIRC in the 80s a standard double had a 42 rather than a 39, and I doubt road cassettes went up to 27-28 like now.

well I cant disagree with anything there. sadly all this triple talk reminds me of all the work I get to do, to try and get back to where I was last year, after eating my way through my divorce. Oh well, my 30 will be there for me. UP,UP and AWAY!

For what it's worth, a double with a 53/39 and 11-32 cassette gives the same gearing range as a triple with a 53/x/30 and 11-25 cassette, at the expense of wider gaps in shifting.

The wider gaps are hard on us older folks. I have to burn too many matches to get up to speed as it is. As long as I can get into that higher gear I'm ok, I just cant let my cadence down , now if I have to slow, and down shift, I may have to wait and recover before up shifting with a larger spread. Its just too hard to get back on top of a gear after a couple tooth jump. But like you said its all a compromise. With a nice tight close ratio cogset Its not so difficult for me. I slow, down, shift, then when its time to speed up, I can usually over cadence the current gear, shift, give it a little bit more, and I am back on top of it. I have found it too be easier to spin the higher gears up that way than pound them into submision.

No one in the current A group of bike club I ride with uses a triple. They seem to be mixed in the B group, and a triple is the predominate setup in the C group. I think that says more about the LBS mentality regarding new riders than anything else.

As far as compact cranks go, I used one off and on all last summer, mainly in the not so nice weather, since it was on my nasty weather bike.

The A group has some pretty serious riders in it, me being one of them, and no one even noticed that I was using a compact until I climbed one of the shorter steeper hills (Snake Hill Rd if you are familiar with LI) on the big ring. Even then all that was said then was "when did Mark become so strong?" and before I could answer someone said "he's cheating, he has a compact today." But no one really cared, what was important was that no one held anyone else up (we normally ride no drop).

Which comes back to what UMD stated above. In the real world performance is everything and equipment means very little. If you are in a group ride and you are holding your own no will care what you are riding. If they do, I wouldn't ride with them anyway.

BTW, we have a couple of women that ride in the A group, they ride standard doubles, and they are nothing to mess with. The newbie's that assume they are weak are spanked pretty quick.

I believe the op was getting flack locally for having a triple on his bike thats why he came here loaded for bear.

A triple is like a security blanket. When you can get the same useful range with a double, why not go double?

I'm sure that has been pointed out a number of times already, but it's winter, so...

My left knee hurts?

depends on grade of road and fitness level of rider.

Smart guy, this one. :thumb:

Despite all the ego and superstition wrapped up around this issue (and, well, just about everything else in cycling it seems), it's pretty much a math problem. But, given the state of education in today's America, I can see why it's kinda hard for some folks to get their head wrapped around the idea that you can climb anything with a double, compact double, or triple, if you use equivalent gearing. And you can get equivalent gearing using any one of those set-ups, doncha know.

Sheldon already answered this question for us: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/index.html

You just have to be able to count (and type using only the number keys!), so most people here can probably figure this out. ;)

I use a 30-23 (or in extreme cases a 30-27). Tell me. How do I get the equivalent double on a road bike without replacing half the drivetrain?

Besides, y'all are missing a point (one presumes; I'm not going to read 300 posts to find out if anyone got it): For those of us that need the wide gearing (for climbing), a triple offers much closer, more comfortable ratios in the 'normal' range.

Example: I started my modern road bike experience with a 52/42/30 with 11 - 27 8 speed cassette. Then I did some math and realized a 50/34 with 11-30 gave me nearly the same wide range, particularly the lowest gear. The rear derailer was Sora and it handled the large range cassette just fine. Within a few months of riding I realized I didn't use that lowest combination except in extreme circumstances, so the large cassette wasn't practical. I currently ride 50/34, 11-28 and rarely use the lowest gear.

With regular riding it doesn't take long for an out of shape body to snap back into some form where you won't feel like keeling over at the first hint of a hill. At that point the lowest combination won't be used or needed.

A 30/23 has a ratio of 1.3 and a 30/27 has a ratio of 1.11.

A 36/28 has a ratio of 1.28 (lower) and a 34/32 (mtb derailer) a ratio of 1.06. Would necessarily make sense to replace a functioning drivetrain to get a double instead of a triple but if you were starting from scratch...

No, we understand that point. That is a perfectly valid reason why some people prefer a triple. However that is not a reason that one is necessary or better.

Could be a shoe/fit/pedal stroke issue.

[QUOTE=KiddSisko;10344763]Could be a shoe/fit/pedal stroke issue.[/QUOT]

Or a knee issue.