Triple or 29 rear cog?

[MallyG]

I'm riding l'Etape this year - at 150 miles, it's the longest stage of the Tour de France. Now, although this year the route doesn't go through the alps, there are still a few major climbs to contend with (some of which don't even appear until 100 miles +).
Question is, should I swap my Record 10spd for a triple (which means - I'm told - changing the bottome bracket, rear and front mech, rear derailleur, chainset etc), or should I just swap the rear cassette (currently 23) to a 29?
Any thoughts....?

[Bruce K]

I would look at the resulting ratios and overlaps created by changing your rear casette.

There has been alot of discussion (mostly on the old forum) about the FSA Compact double and what that gives you for climbing, etc.

It is my understanding (based on Shimano 9 speed) that the compact with it's 50/34 when used with an 11-23 cassette gives the equivalent of a 53/39 and a 12-26 with the least number of overlaps of any combination.

If you needed more climbing power you could then use a 12-25 casette.

This solution would effectively be a "bolt on" as the only change necessary would be a slight relocation of your front derailleur and some cable adjustment.

I hope this helps.

BK

[Kevin]

MallyG,

I agree with Bruce K. Installing a triple is a lot of work. Playing with the cassette and possibly the chainrings seems alot easier.

Kevin

[flydhest]

Mally,

It's a bit tough to answer because we don't really know how strong you are. For example, some people at this year's Serotta open house said they were bummed they only brought a 25 on their cassette, whereas I was riding an 11-23 and never used the 23. When I was at Connie Carpenter and Davis Phinney's bike camp in Italy, we did a climb on Elba that was 6 miles with an average grade of 14% I had a 39-25 and was dying :crap: I mean dying. However, one of the guides--an ex-pro--had done it the day before in his 21 . . . ba$tard.

That said, Bruce has the right first step. See just how much you'd be gaining by having a 30-23 or 30-25 as opposed to a 39-29. A 30-23 is 34.3 inches whereas a 39-29 is 35.3. For comparison, your current 39-23 is 44.6 inches. I consider the 1 inch differential between the 30-23 and the 39-29 to be small. The 10 inch differential by swapping out the cassette, however, is large.

I also do not like triples since I haven't ridden one I like. People say the new ones work well, but I haven't found a need for a triple yet. Moreover, the gearing is so redundant, I don't quite see how they help. People mistakenly (in my opinion) think that if they want an easier gear, they need a triple. I think that if someone wants and easier gear . . . they should get an easier gear. This does not necessarily mean a triple.

In fact, if you were going to swap out enough parts to make a triple, my advice would be to get a TA or other crank that would allow you to switch chain rings. A 34-50 double with a 12-25 would do wonders. A 34-50 with a 13-29 cassette would give you a gear that is lower than a 30 (on a triple) with a 25.

[H.Frank Beshear]

MallyG, I used this site to compare different gearing when I was starting on my winter project. Its kind of a neat program since it will not only tell you the gear inches but also the speed at different rpms. Have fun Frank http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

[victoryfactory]

When I set up my Atlanta (DuraAce) for a trip out west this year, I put on an FSA compact 50/34 and a 12/27 on the rear. The 34/27 combo is pretty close to what you get with a triple without the extra setup hassles
Great results, very easy installation, same chain length. Same rear der.
VF

[davids]

I've currently got a triple (Ultegra, so the front is 52-42-30) with an 11-23 cassette. I'm thinking a doing exactly what Bruce suggested, and going to a double 50-34, with a 12-25 cassette. I think I'm going to wait for the new Ritchey crank.

Here's why: I hardly ever use the highest gears or the lowest. I think I can give up those extremes without missing either. I went with the triple to ensure I had a wide range of gears, and I've ended up with too many choices! I hardly use the small ring, and when I do, it's usually to go with the 30-21 combo. I can approximate that with a a 34-25.

A double will simplify my gear choices, lighten my bike, and (let's be honest) look better than the triple. Unfortunately, I'm going to need to replace my entire drivetrain to get there.

My caveat is that this is a very personal decision, and your gearing choices have as much to do with your own strength and the grades you ride on as on our advice!

Good luck,

[Johny]

Mally,

Just want to say-if you swap the rear cassette (currently 23) to a 29 and you are currently using a short-cage rear derailleur, it would be fine as long as you do NOT shift to the big 52 or 53 chainring when the chain is on the 29 of the cassette ; otherwise, you may break the rear derailleur (I never try this ;) ; I heard this from other "experienced" people). To be safe, I would use the medium-cage derailleur for a 13-29 cassette.

[Bradford]

I'm a dedicated triple guy, I have them on all of my bikes. That being said, I wouldn't change to a triple for one ride. I think you either ride a triple all the time or ride a double all the time, but it doesn't make sense to do anything in between.

I backed into triples. When I bought my first touring bike, it had a triple, and I just learned that I liked it a whole lot more than a double. After a life's worth of playing hockey, my knees are mush, and a triple allows me to spin up hills while not taking away my big gears for down hills and flats. I watch cadence more than anything else, and a triple allows you to spin in the 90s in more situations.

I think the key to loving a triple is how you use it. I spend almost all my time in the middle ring and only use the small ring to climb and the big ring when I am really flying. There really isn't that much shifting involved. I have three different flavors of Shimano triples on my bikes, Ultegra on the road bike, 105 on the tandem, and XT (bar ends with friction on the front ring) on the touring bike, and they all shift just fine.

So my advice would be to go with some of the fine options mentioned in these posts if you are thinking about a ride or a trip, but don't discount changing the way you ride if you find that in most of your riding you need another ring to keep you spin up.

Spin to win,

Bradford

[flydhest]

Bradford,

You bring up, I think, the biggest advantage for a triple--span of possible gearing from biggest to smallest.

That said, a 50-12 and 52-12 isn't that big a difference.

Moreover, I tend to think of the idea that a triple lets you spin up a hill in the same vein as the idea that a triple gives you a lower gear. Lower gearing lets you spin up a hill, not necessarily a triple.

I try to keep my cadence in the 95 rpm range unless I'm going really fast--like leading up to and during a sprint--in which case it goes up.

The fact that Bradford doesn't shift that much out of his middle ring I think illustrates the redundancy of the gearing.

[jeffg]

MallyG --

I have both a 48-34, 12-27 (sometimes custom 11-27) & a 53-39, 13-29 setup. Both work great, and provide some good gearing. As far as the lowest bottom gear, a 34X27 is slightly lower than the 39X29 (which, in turn, is barely lower but equivalent to a 34X25).

The question really is your strength and cadence preference. The above gearing is better than a 39X27, which I used for both the Dolomite Marathon and Devil Mountain Double in 2002; however, I will not be spinning at 80+ RPM up the Passo Giau or Sierra Road even with a 34X27. The toughest section on L'Etape I can see is on the Pas de Peyrol, where the climb is 5.5 km at 8%, but the final 2.5 km run at 10.3%, 12.4%, and 11.3%, respectively. Tough, but not excessive for Alpine standards. If you were hitting Mont Ventoux, Mortirolo, etc., then you might want to get that triple. I find a 53-12 optimal for descending, and anything less than a 52-13 is a bit of a bummer on a long Alpine descent.

If 39X29 seems good to you, then you can just change your RD and cassette. If you want the cheapest option, get a Centaur RD. The short cage will handle both your 11-23 and 13-29 and costs much less than Record/Chorus.

best of luck,

Jeff

[Kurt]

Dealing with the fsa or other 110's is easier than a triple, but the big problem is the huge amount of cog shifting required after every chainring shift. Most often, it requires a 4-cog shift to resume a uniform gearing progression, compared with a 2-cog shift for a 53/39. Ergo and STI levers will only shift up to 3 larger cogs, requiring two strokes of the shift lever. Ergo levers can shift down 4-cogs with the thumb button, so the shift from the big ring to the little isn't quite as bad with ergo levers.

If one cannot hit a 60-70rpm then lower gears are in order

If you're riding mountains, a 53/39/30 is the ideal way to go because it preseves a uniform 2-cog shift after every chainring shift and provides the low gears for climbing without the loss of higher gears for descending. Properly setup, there's hardly any difference in shifting precision (at least with Campy). With Campy ergo levers, it's also possible to go from the 30 to the 53 in one shift.

Campy does not offer this range I think, but fsa and other do.

[Bradford]

Flydhest,

You are right about a couple of things. There isn't much difference between a 50 & a 52, which is why I think some of the different double gearing options often mentioned on this site are great options. I run the standard triple on two of my bikes, but I run a 50/40/26 on my touring bike. (Friction bar end, so no problem going from the 40 to the 26). It isn't very often that I wish I had a 53 on the front, and since I don't race, it really isn't a big deal at all. That would probably be a little different on the tandem, where it is easier to top out, and it really feels good to get up over 30 mph.

In addition, you are also right about the redundancy, which is exactly why I usually ride in the middle gear.

But the reason I ride a triple comes with the small ring. For me, with bad knees, there is a severe penalty for grinding too much on a ride. When I'm out on a double and hit lots of big hills and ride hard, I'll have trouble walking the next day, and will probably be off the bike for couple of days. So for me, any break I get with the small ring has a huge payoff, and that is the biggest reason I ride the triple. With the 30 as an option, or the 26 on my touring bike, it does make a big difference to me. For you to match the gearing I ride, you'd have to have a 30/50 double. A 36 just isn't enough for me. (This is one of the few areas of cycling where any improvement, even if it is slight, can make a difference to me).

Also, the size of the rear cog is irrelevant, or more accurately, is a constant. I ride a 12-27 on my road bike and a 12-32 on the tandem and touring bike. There is no reason why you would ride a smaller cog range with a triple than you would with a double. What it comes down to in the end is one question: does dropping down to a 30 tooth ring give me enough gain? For me, the answer is yes, others will have to decide for themselves.

I recognize that I am probably in the minority. I haven't met too many people who are as sensitive to grinding as I am. So for the majority of people, I think the alpine double makes plenty of sense.

But look at the flip side. We can probably all admit that there is only a small gain going from an alpine double to a full triple. But what is the penalty? As far as I'm concerned, the only real penalty is weight (and expense, if you are thinking about converting). I just don't buy the shifting quality issue. Sure, I'll admit that a double does shift better, but a triple certainly shifts well enough for my needs. I rode close to 4K miles on triples last year and the shifting was just fine. As with many issues on this board, I think we get lost between the issues of what is better and what is good enough. If I were racing, I'm sure it would make more sense to ride a double, but for the way I ride, and considering how much of a difference it makes to my knees, I'm very happy with a triple.

[jeffg]

Kurt --

I think this is likely an issue with 50X34 only, which exceeds the recommended 14 tooth difference of the double FD.

For example, 48/34, 12-27 spans from 105.1 to 33.1 gear inches
53X39, 13-29: 107.1 to 35.3, i.e. the range is identical. I have not noticed any real issues in finding the correct gear in either case.

[Kurt]

I only use a 53/39. I have tried every combo I can. A triple is the most correct way to go to gain a lower gear when needed and have small jumps between cogs. Everything else is just what one can live with. Here is a good calculator to see what is what.
I for one do not like changing gears too much, in a pack I just set the 53/16 and go. Lots of this stuff just comes down to pers. pref, imo

http://www.panix.com/~jbarrm/cycal/cycal.30f.html


Originally posted by jeffg
Kurt --

I think this is likely an issue with 50X34 only, which exceeds the recommended 14 tooth difference of the double FD.

For example, 48/34, 12-27 spans from 105.1 to 33.1 gear inches
53X39, 13-29: 107.1 to 35.3, i.e. the range is identical. I have not noticed any real issues in finding the correct gear in either case.

[flydhest]

Bradford,

I see your point if you hold the cassette constant. I am caught up in Campy World, as I inferred (perhaps wrongly) the original poster is, but that's sort of doesn't matter as I went off about gearing in general.

So--holding the casette constant, to get a significantly smaller gear without giving up a lot on the top end you have to go to a triple.

However, in Campy World, I think about switching between the 12-25 and 13-29 cassettes. With a 48 or 50-34 crankset, you've got so many options there, especailly if you modify the cassettes to make a "one smaller" small cog.

You also--astutely--point out that this quickly ends up being personal, as living in the alluvial plain that I live in, I almost never find a hill that I can't spin a 39-25 easily. Some of that is me, some of that is the terrain.

My experience--admittedly more limited--with triples has not been as positive. Perhaps I should give them another try. But while I don't race anymore, I typically find myself in race-type situations on rides where someone is attacking and someone is countering, and it is precisely where there is a big change in tempo or steepness that I might need to shift to the easier gear, precisely when any difference in FD shifting makes the most difference.

Also, I believe it is the case that triples have a higher Q-factor than doubles. With modern cranks the way they are, I'm not in a rush to increase this aspect.

That said, you're absolutely right that all that matters fundamentally is finding the setup that works under the conditions the person is riding.

[jeffg]

in my view a triple is the most correct way to go when you need a very low gear (less than a 34X27) and wish to maintain a top end gear of 52-13 or more. Otherwise a 110 BCD double just shifts the range down a bit, i.e. you get a lower bottom gear by giving a little on the top. There is no downside in terms of jumps. If you don't need a 53-11, then voila. If you need a a 53-12 and a 30-27, no Alpine double will do.

[Kurt]

you do get that I was responding to the original post? your comments seems to reflect that I am in the market for something different, which I am not. My point to the original poster is with a 34/50 everytime you hit 19+ you have to make a front ring change, and in doing so must adjust 4 cogs to keep a nice run on gears. If your exp with the 48 is diff and you like it, then great. You are not using campy and your middle cogs are diff so I think this might tant thinks a bit. Apples to apples, etc. Campy does not have a 12/27, they bel more in close ratios it would seem.

Originally posted by jeffg
in my view a triple is the most correct way to go when you need a very low gear (less than a 34X27) and wish to maintain a top end gear of 52-13 or more. Otherwise a 110 BCD double just shifts the range down a bit, i.e. you get a lower bottom gear by giving a little on the top. There is no downside in terms of jumps. If you don't need a 53-11, then voila. If you need a a 53-12 and a 30-27, no Alpine double will do.

[hybridbellbaske]

Mally G,

I used to have an Ultegra triple- which, when I weighed 30 lbs more than I do now, still did'nt give me low enough gears, so I had a 28 tooth ring put on in place of the 30.

This gave a LOW gear of 28/27, about a 29 inch gear. When I climbed Mont Ventoux in June 2001 I had to put it in the granny and still grind my way up. I did it- I was slow and it hurt, but I did it.

Now I am 30 lbs lighter and have a Chorus double groupset with a 39/29 low gear, about 36.3 inches. I have'nt yet actually needed to use the 29 bailout, although I have'nt yet done any really long rides with the new group. I acknowledge that the small ring on the triple does come in handy at the end of a long hilly ride.

So my take on it is that unless you're out of shape, like I was, or are really concerned about the last part of a really long ride, I don't think the extra mucking around with a triple is worth the few less gear inches you get.

[MallyG]

anyone know anything about compact rear cassettes?

[MallyG]

.. everyone for some good advice. I think I'll stay with the double rather than change everything for a triple. I'll probably swap the rear for the 13-29, and I'm currently thinking about my lbs suggestion of a compact chainset, giving me a 50 - 34 at the front. Although the climbs aren't as high as last year's etape, the fact that you don't reach some of the real biggies till 100 miles plus saceres the hell out of me. Remember, it's over 150 miles in total, in July.
Thanks again.

[IFRider]

I am riding both a Ultegra Triple and Chorus 10 speed 13-29.

Everything has already been said but these are some of the major points why I have both combo's.

The Ultegra Triple is on a IF Club Racer. It is a modern sport touring bike. Most of the time it is used for day rides and nasty weather as it has room for fenders. Once a year, I use it for multi-day touring. I swap out the chain, Ultegra rear end for a XT long cage and go with a 12-34 cluster. This give me super low gears for riding with panniers in the mountainsof VT.

The triple is a real pain to get setup on the front. The FD needs to be adjusted just right to minimize chain rub in all gears. It took me a long time to get it right.

I think that if a nice "110" cranked existed when the 10 speed stuff first came out I would probably done that with the alpine rear as needed.

I like the "pie plate" in the rear enough to build up an old Waterford Paramount I have with a double and 12-28 for puttering around on my commute.

Warren

[deanster]

Here is a novel idea. If you have a fancy set of wheels by Mavic or one of the other Botique wheel builders buy a Shimano Hub Body and swap it out with the campy one. Buy a SRAM (or Shimano) 11-34 9 spd cassette and mount it on the wheel. Buy a 9spd chain SRAM (buy the one that goes with the cassette). Adjust the stops for the 9spd cassette on your 10 spd shifters and you will have a 39/34 gear combo...
If you don't have a Botique wheel then buy an 105 Shimano wheel and subsitute for your rear wheel. When you come back from the TdF then you can sell the Hub Body, Wheel, cassette and chain (unless you have a MTB) on eBay or Craig's List to recoup your expenses.

I have been experimenting with gearing for a touring bike I am planning. I have an old steel frameset and I have set it up this way. I happen to buy a Centaur Hub with a Shimano Hub Body and built up the wheel this way. I have Record, Chorus, Centaur Ergos, and a set of Campy Barends. It works with all. I have tried it on a Triple (both 10spd and 9spd racing triple) and Compact Double (with a triple FD). I should try it with a double but, I don't have the need for touring. It may take a Different FD like a triple or Compact double.

You will be amazed how well it works!!! The spacing for the Campy Ergos is very close to the Shimano/SRAM 9spd.

[M.Sommers]

anyone know anything about compact rear cassettes?

I vote for an alloy compact crankset, Centaur, inexpensive, 50X34 with a 13/29 Campy Chorus cassette.

:beer:

[gone]

I have to wonder why this 5 year old thread has been resurrected. Goodness knows the "triple vs. everything else" topic comes up often enough without raising the dead.

[deanster]

I have to wonder why this 5 year old thread has been resurrected. Goodness knows the "triple vs. everything else" topic comes up often enough without raising the dead.

Glad you pointed it out...I'll read the banner date next time. Thanks.