Neurotic: road triple?

[mhespenheide]

Neurotic question here: what's it like to ride a road triple crank?

As I've gotten older and less interested in riding a 39x25 up mountains, I've gone to compact cranks (34x28, now looking at 34x32), but I've also found that I'm often riding in the cross-chain positions: little ring, little cogs; big ring, bigger cogs. I'm often shifting both front and rear. It strikes me that a triple crank might be the better solution. Say, 50/40/28 or something similar, with 12-28 in the back. One ring for uphill, one for the flats, and one for downhills or drafting.

I know, I'm rediscovering the 1970's. (Or earlier.)

I've ridden triples on mountain bikes (although I don't ride those much...), but never on the road. Aside from the expense of converting and the wider Q-factor, what other issues should I be aware of? Have you been able to embrace your inner fredliness and learned to love the triple?

[Mzilliox]

I love my triple on the bike that has a triple. the triple on this bike serves a purpose. I don't race this bike, and the gear bag is always more full than i need, adding extra weight, so the triple is nice to have. I could ride this bike all day long, and make sure that at the end i can get up the hill to my house, in the granny if i have to!

[IMG]Stronglight drive by Matt.zilliox, on Flickr[/IMG]

triples can be sexy too!

[IMG]Riding the Applegate by Matt.zilliox, on Flickr[/IMG]

Its cool, bikes are tools, not just racing machines. Embrace the triple!

[adrien]

I've ridden some road triples on rental bikes. On three of them (all 105, IIRC) the FD shifting was finicky and a little off, such that it needed some thought and mechanical sympathy to get completely right. I also found, FWIW, that the gear ratio overlap was extreme -- so there were 30 gears but realistically only about 20 ratios (just different ways to get them). With all the trim, it seemed an odd solution.

I've personally been riding wider cassettes for some time, and have an 11-30 on my climbing wheels, combined with a compact up front. Now, I ride Red or Force (depends on the bike), both with the Yaw FD. I've found it works well, and isn't finicky when set up right. And the wider cassette range and perceived "cross chaining", though not really much, has not led to faster wear. Now, if you are among the SRAM haters out there this may not be an option for you.

Bottom line -- the triples I've ridden are fine, but fussy. A wider range double will certainly fit the bill, but it may not be your choice.

[I Want Sachs?]

You are risking ridicule by your pals who ride carbon Felt bikes with 52/39 with straight block.

No seriously, no problem with the triple.

[Bostic]

Good enough to get me to the summit of Haleakala on a rental that I specifically requested a triple on.



I have a ton of experience with Shimano 6703 10 speed. It shifts silly fast from the 30 to the 39. I also used Campagnolo 53/42/30 for some years. Depending on your needs of the chain ring sizes will help determine what you want to invest in. I don't have any experience with the newest Campagnolo triples that use Powershift internals.

I switched one bike from triple to 11 speed compact double 105. With an 11-28 there are plenty of gears but I still find I miss in between steps that the 39 and 30 offer. I'm not fast. Fast riders are fast no matter what they ride and on a compact, cross chaining is a non-issue. I know as I get dropped by them whether they are in 50x28 or 34x11.

[Scuzzer]

I love my triple. I was going to replace my 53/39 double crank with a compact but noticed my riding buddy was always horribly cross-chained when riding around here on his, it doesn't bother him but it upsets my inner engineering nerd. I went with a 50/42/34 and rediscovered the awesomeness of the 42.

Now 90% of my riding is in the 42 (with a 12-28 cogset), the 50 reserved for downhills and the 34 for the steepest uphills. I'm large and old so I somewhat revel in my fredliness.

[Ralph]

Well....every time I mention I like a triple on at least one of my bikes.....I get shouted down. Someone always comes on and says how triples not needed any more because you can duplicate the same range of gear ratios with a compact.

Well....that's true sorta, but (as a math major many years ago) it is not that simple. A lot depends on where and how you ride. And anyone with 7th grade math abilities can figure out that a triple can offer a lot more gears in the sweet spot where you ride, and offer closer gear changes in front...where a compact just annoys the hell out of me.

I concede that if I lived in real hilly or mountainous terrain, where I didn't need gears real close together, and just needed a range of gears from very low to very high, a compact would work OK.

But I live where it's flat to rolling hills. And sometimes take this bike to mountains, or ride some short 15% hills around here. I really like a near straight "block" in rear, and mostly use a 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26 with a 30-42-52 in front. Essentially I ride it as a 42-52 in front and a 13-26 in rear....with a 30 tooth granny kicker for steep hills. Terrific chainline for pack riding on flats. And shifting is perfect, same as a double. Sometimes I might put a 12-30 on rear for NC mountain riding. Not as strong as I used to be. My other bike I ride a lot has a 39-52 and 13-26.

I would not trade any of these for a compact...and I've used them in 34-50 and 34-48. 34-48 not bad actually with a 12 something or other cassette...whatever you like. I have a bunch of Campy 10 cassettes.

The only draw back to me with a triple is a wider Q, I'm 5' 10" with fairly long legs so no big deal to me (but maybe to some), and the U on my Campy triples is fine for me.

[eddief]

all bikes (4) all run triples. Learn to adjust them and they mostly stay adjusted with zero issues. My preferred combo is Ultegra 6603 with normal granny BCD that enables going down to 24 teeth. I ride 26 granny and 34 cog set. Ultegra after 6603 had dumb inner BCD. I could do fine with standard triple and go to 36 in the rear if necessary. Also weight loss has enabled one cog better strength, so could go down to 32.

I hated all the front shifting I needed to do with compact doubles. Sort of depends on the terrain where you ride. Older Shimano triple stuff becoming collector's items.

[guido]

I prefer a 46-30 or 48-32 crank instead. With a 11-36 cassette they really are close to perfection... Better shifting, very little cross chaining.

[Bradford]

Originally Posted by Scuzzer

....Now 90% of my riding is in the 42 (with a 12-28 cogset), the 50 reserved for downhills and the 34 for the steepest uphills. I'm large and old so I somewhat revel in my fredliness.

That is exactly my experience, from the 90% to the joy of fredliness. I wouldn't consider riding anything else, especially here in Colorado.

It is true that the shifting is better with a double, but it is also true that the shifting is well past good enough with a triple, even if you start to do funky stuff like the 52/39/26 I run. If you are racing or really enjoy the A ride at your local shop, you might really care about perfect shifting. If are are done with all that and don't care if shifting takes another 1/2 second, a triple will do you just fine.

I also wouldn't worry about the Q, I think that is more in people's heads than real, like when people worry about weight of another 4 spokes (see Potato, Old). When I still lived at sea level, I rode three bikes on a regular basis, a tandem with a triple, a touring bike with a triple, and a road bike with a double. I went back and forth between the three and I never noticed the Q past the first minute of the ride, the adjustment was seamless. I'm taller, so I prefer the wider Q, but I was just fine with the narrow double by the time I rolled out of my neighborhood.

Are you on Campy or Shimano? If Shimano, make sure you understand the inner ring BCD issues before you make the jump. I want 10 speed and a 26 tooth inner ring, so I run 6603/6604 Ultegra cranks, which are easily available on ebay. With 10 speed Dura Ace, or anything past Ultegra 6600, you won't be able to run anything under 30. I think 105 gives you more flexibility with later groups, but since it is easy enough to get Ultegra 6303/4, I've stuck with that.

[FlashUNC]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Downsides: Gear overlap. Like having lots of redundant gear combos? Triples are for you. Ever ride a compact that didn't shift great up front and think "man, could they somehow may this even more finicky?" Triples are for you. Worry about cross chaining and shifting alot with a compact? Well, you'll shift like a 18-wheel long-haul trucker with a triple. (1-low, 1-high, 2-low, 2-high...)

I think they have their uses (loaded touring, for example), but by and large it introduces a lot of downsides to get, what, basically a lower granny gear? If I can't ride up something in a 34x32, odds are I doubt I'd be able to walk up the darn thing either.

[paredown]

I'm gathering up parts for triples for my bikes--and yes, it is an admission of getting older. Long gone are the days of the 54-42 and the 13-18 corncob on the back.

I have no experience with compacts, but I simple-mindedly think of a triple as a middle ring where I am generally all the time now, a smaller ring for bailout and a big ring for going down hill.

Not sure I care about overlaps so much--and I do hope to get a setup I'm happy with to use for future light touring.

If I don't like it, I will try compacts next--but there is no shortage of compacts, while the triple stuff is hard to get.

As for setup (Campy)--I test road a bike last week that had the older Racing T cranks and mechs with Chorus 10 shifters and it worked flawlessly with a 13-26 on the back. So I'm assuming that you can minimize setup problems.

[fiamme red]

I've never had any difficulty in shifting a triple compared to a double, but I do use downtube shifters with the triple. I never cross chain, which I see riders on compact cranks doing much of the time. I have a 52/42/30 crank and 14-25 9-speed cassette, so I have no big jumps between cogs.

I love being able to cruise along on the rollers in my 42, and then drop it into the 30 when I hit a steep climb, especially if it's unexpected. It's much easier shifting from the middle ring to the inner ring than to shift down three cogs in the back when I'm overgeared on a tough pitch.

[eddief]

right now exactly 1 stand alone of these cranks on ebay. Get em while you can.

[warren128]

I like my Campagnolo road triple, built with Centaur Ergo shifters, Centaur 52/42/30 crankset, 13-26 10 speed cassette, Centaur triple FD, Chorus long cage RD. Shifting is smooth, and as other mentioned already, I really like the almost straight block of the 13-26 cassette. That, along with the 42 ring is a really nice combo for vast majority of my riding time. For hilly sections (I live in the SF Bay Area) I switch to the 30 ring, and use the larger half of the cassette, and for downhills, I use the smaller half of the cassette on the 52 ring. I don't care about overlap, and I don't have to cross chain.

That being said, on my next bike build, I decided to try a compact for the first time. The combination is: 50/34, 13-29, and I have now become accustomed to riding this setup, and I don't have problems swapping between the two bikes. Same philosphy for me as using the triple, only simpler, I ride on the 50 ring most of the time, but when things get hilly, I to to the 34 and and use the larger half of the cassette. I don't mind cross chaining the 50 ring to the larger cogs occasionally.

Now for my current bike build, I decided to go with a standard crankset setup. It will be a 53/39 with 13-29 cassette. I don't race, and I'm an old, slow guy, but I'm a stronger rider now than when I built the triple bike a few years ago, so I decided to try this for fun and comparison.

I used an online gear calculator to help with the decision making. This link is for comparing 50/34, 13-29 vs. 52/42/30, 13-26.

http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=D...23,26&UF2=2125