Hot Potato

I bought a roubaix triple because I liked the color of the bike. So there, its not all about the look of a double.

Amd since everyone else bought into the compact double scam, I never see anyone else with a bike like mine.

KendallF

I've never gotten to ride over the Dames Point Bridge. Oh, and my FL race bike has a 56/44, if that gives me any manliness points...

rpeterson

I'm a fairly strong young rider and I like my triple. Allows me to have the spacing I like (11-21) while still allowing me a low enough gear that I can comfortably spin up hills rather than mash. But then, I live in a mountainous area, and my last 2 miles home is a sustained 12% with sections up to 18%, and it's an absolute ***** when I'm riding my TT bike with a standard double.

Shifting isn't quite as nice as the double, but after a week I figured out how to keep the chain from dropping and keep everything running smooth, so that's no issue for me anymore, if minor shifting performance is such an issue then HTFU.

DaveSSS 

I really doubt that. Most often, the tread width is about 10mm wider, sometimes more. The current double tread width is 145.5mm. The chainline and tread width can vary depending on the spindle length chosen. With the 115mm spindle length that most of today's bikes require to produce the 47.5mm chainline, that alone adds 4mm to the width. I would suspect a tread width around 160mm. With the 47.5mm chainline, the middle ring is about 7.5mm further to the right than a double's little ring.

Carbon Unit

You could be right. I called Campy to ask them that same question and they told me that all Campy cranks have the same Q-factor. Even if they are wrong, it probably isn't an issue for me since I seem to have no issues with the Q-factor of this triple.

shouldberiding

Good reason for owning a triple: Snow.

ahsposo 

You are comfortable using that phrase?

Carbon Unit

I will take your word for it. I haven't seen snow in at least 15 years and I was 30 years old before I saw it snowing.

ciocc_cat

I'm 55 and live in south Louisiana where the topography is essentially flat to gently rolling and the steepest climbs are freeway overpasses. I currently have my 1980s Ciocc road bike set-up with 47-41 chainrings and a 13-23 6-speed freewheel. The shifting pattern is a "Lazy Man's Crossover" which means I effectively have only seven usable gears but NO double shifts. Even with this set-up I rarely use anything lower than 41-21 or higher than 47-17 on my typically solo training rides and I've yet to spin out on my 47-13. To answer the OP's question - I simply don't need a triple. Heck, I suppose that I hardly even need a double!

Edit: On those very rare (freakish) occasions where it does snow here, it lasts just long enough for photos then melts.

Hermes

He is trying to be more "today".

I am more concerned with his comment about covering up his drivetrain. What is next? Suspicious hand movements?

Hermes

I suggest a fixed gear, 84 gear inches and be done. You will be spinning that at 90 rpm in no time.

tubapro

I live in the NC mountains and have to do a 3 mile 9% grade climb to go anywhere in the 3 directions I can go from my house. I started back after 15 years off on a standard double. It was hard to ride anywhere for any distance. I swapped gears to a 39 on the front and a 11-32 on the rear. That made a huge difference for me and I was able to ride more places for longer. I recently bought a Trek 2.1 triple and now I can ride over anything around. It wasn't magical over what I had before, but it is nice to know that I'll get home. I'm 195 lbs now and was 160 when I was at my riding peak when I was younger. The triple makes my ride a little more enjoyable and is a motivator for me. I might consider a compact double when I get lower in weight, but for now, the triple is awesome for me. I haven't had any issues with shifting except for getting used to a more "clunky" shifting feel. My previous Trek had index shifting on the down tubes so it was a huge change.

ciocc_cat

I've actually been thinking about a fixed gear bike. Could happen!

ahsposo 

From some of his recent posts I was thinking he might use "Serenadin' a triple" or "Waltzin' a triple" or if he really got it going maybe "Polkain' a triple".

midgetmaestro 

Ditch the triple. Buy Apex.

Rhodabike

I put a compact crankset on my road bike and don't like it. A triple would give me fewer chain line problems. Mind you, now that I live in Saskatoon, I don't find myself needing very low gears so much.
As for image, well, Jeannie Longo used to use one in mountain races back in the 80s and 90s. Perhaps that's why she's still winning races now in her 50s - no knee problems.

cappuccino911

I have a triple with a microshift double shifter and have minimal issues with shifting. I'm 235 lbs and have a torn acl in my left knee so I have to spin so its a triple with 9 speed 11-32 cassette for me. I love it .

dahut

Triple. There you go.

ahsposo 

EMPLOY COMPLEX SOLUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY.

I guess a triple fits this.

jamesdak 

I'd have to agree. My Trek is a compact double and my Schwinn is a triple. I don't really see any difference in the shifting at all. I suck at hills right now and so far the triple is working better for me despite being a heavier bike. To be honest I never gave the chainring much thought when getting either bike. Maybe as I get better and stronger I will see a value of one over the other.

7bmwm3gtr

You can get pretty close ratios from a 34-27 and a 30-25. At 90 RPM, using a 30-21 will give you almost the same results as a 34-23. I'm a noob and I can't explain it any further, so I'll attach a picture of the ratio I plugged into Sheldon Brown's gear calculator.

I have a trple, but I think this has been stated before; that the triple is a marketing strategy which bicycle companies use, and the target group are the people who are normally used to the cheap Department Store (WalMart, Sports Authority) bikes, which are typically mountain bikes equipped with 3 chainrings. Either that, or it's for people who don't believe they can make it up steeper hills.

icyclist 

For me, the decision to go triple or double comes down to which of my two road bikes I want to use.

I can get up any hill, up to a 15% grade, with a 39/27. However, when I string together a series of hills here in Los Angeles, with 15-20% grades, riding 5,000 feet in 30 miles, I don't mind riding my bike with the triple. I don't want to fight with a hill, I want to be one with it on my bike.

"A triple crankset seems only appropriate for those with very little fitness."

Come on next year's "Death Ride," in northern California, 129 miles and 15,000 feet of climbing. Bring a compact double, and have at it. I've never seen so many triples on one ride, including my triple. Those bikes with doubles seemed to sport massive, pie plate cogs.

Compact doubles, at least those with the 50/34 set-up, are seemingly the last refuge for those too timid or too weak to handle a standard double, or too fearful of tacking truly epic climbs.

dahut

Absolutely. Same gear set, same shift set - one more ring.
However if you define that as complexity, well, you're kidding right?...

As for me, the minor addition of a chain ring gives me options on all the hills I hit. I mean, it's not the big "concern" the snobbish gearheads or bike company critics make of it.
For me, the tradeoff (if, indeed, it is one) makes sense.

rangerdavid

No one should need a triple. There's always doping...........

doctor j

I (with my triple) passed a few of you young guns (with your compact doubles) going up the hills last weekend. In fact, I believe I finished the ride before you did.