Are we partly responsible for the bum rap triples get regarding shift quality?

[RPS]

Have any of you wondered if some riders may be partly responsible for triples’ reported poor shift quality compared to doubles or compacts? When discussing triples versus doubles/compacts, triples’ shift quality inevitably comes up as one of the down sides; but is it all equipment related?

I realize there are physical differences that could explain why some riders don’t like how triples shift, but after riding the better part of a week behind many triples and noticing that many of us shift triples quite differently than doubles; I’m not sure it’s all equipment.

Observed pattern with doubles: The rider uses the small ring to climb and when he/she gets to the top of a hill or climb will start working through the cassette until he/she is in a relatively small cog at which time he/she will shift to the big ring as needed.

Observed pattern with triples: The rider will stay in the middle ring if at all possible by going to his/her largest cogs first and will bail out to the small ring only if needed. More importantly, the rider reverses the process by shifting from the small to the middle ring as soon as possible; as if there is shame in using the small ring.

Not once during the week did I see a single rider shift his double bike from the small to large ring while the cassette was still on the big cogs. On the other hand, shifting of triples from the small to middle ring while still on the larger cogs was quite common.

Although differences should be very minor, should we not expect it to be easier for the chain to go up to the next bigger chainring when chain tension is pulling it in that direction instead of away from the direction we want it to go? Having chain tension working in our favor instead of against us should require a little less effort and should make the shift a little smoother and quicker as well, shouldn't it?

What do you think; are triples “that” different or do many of us use them differently to their detriment? Is it possible riders try to get out of the small 30T ring too soon and thereby force an inefficient shift?

[benb]

Interesting idea.

However I'm wondering if you might need a larger sample size on your doubles riders... how fast were the riders in question? Seems to me you are right about how doubles riders shift from the small ring to the big ring. However when the group is fast I see riders very likely to cross chain from the big ring to some of the biggest cogs.. whereas slower riders will likely shift into the small ring more quickly without going down to the larger cogs first. Seems like it has an awful lot to do with a particular riders assessment of a hill/mountain and their personal ability to climb it. I know personally when I crest a hill I am first upshifting the rear deraiuller.. then at some point I simultaneously upshift the front & downshift the back so I minimize the gear change.

Also which shift are you talking about? Just going from a small chainring to a large chainring?

For what it's worth I probably shift like you mentioned.. only bike I have had with a triple is my MTB. I try really hard not to use the small ring.. but the gearing on my MTB is much shorter then a road equipped triple. My small ring is a 26.. if I have to use it the grade is likely >20% and I'm on dirt and there is a very very good chance I'm going to be walking soon. It's really a last resort.

But my Triple on my MTB shifts just fine.. it never drops the chain and it shifts pretty darn close to as quickly as the doubles I've had. (SRAM X.0 shifter, Shimano LX front der., Shimano XT crank/ring - not even matched!)

My experience so far is the compact double is the worst shifting setup.. but I need it so rarely I've probably not dialed it in as carefully.

[Grant McLean]

Maybe it's easy to over think it.

Most technology as related to bikes works like 'less is more'.
Finding the zone where just-enough is enough, without being too much.
If it's tire size, spoke count, weight, whatever... the more experience
you have to find what you "need" and nothing more.

Do bikes need 30 gears? People will define 'need' differently. I've recently
been training on a single speed with fenders and 32mm tires due to bad
weather. It's amazing what you can get by with if you have to.
The 'get by' part encourages some people, and bugs others.

-g

[gdw]

Maybe you should rephrase the question to..... Why do some roadies have problems setting up and shifting triples?
I'm not trying to slam anyone but mountain bikers have been using triples under far worse conditions for years with minimal problems especially since the industry embraced rings with ramps and pins and cassettes with profiled cogs.

[97CSI]

This forum is the first place I've read that there is a shifting problem with a triple. Been riding a triple group (Racing Triple then Centaur crankset w/mix of Record/Chorus) for 8-years and have no shifting problems. This includes moving the group from frameset to frameset three (3) times. Always works and always works well. Just a bit slower to shift as that long-cage RD makes up the extra chain-wrap.

[chuckred]

I like a double for a road bike and triple for mountain bike. I've been riding mountain bikes since the early 80's - the triples certainly weren't polished back then like they are now, and I can't remember ever having any particular problem that couldn't be solved by using a little more anticipation with the shift.

There must be a reason road triples are either more finicky or that people just think they're more finicky, but I don't know what it is.

[Pete Serotta]

These are the experiences I have had with my triple Campy and Ultegra over the past years.

This forum is the first place I've read that there is a shifting problem with a triple. Been riding a triple group (Racing Triple then Centaur crankset w/mix of Record/Chorus) for 8-years and have no shifting problems. This includes moving the group from frameset to frameset three (3) times. Always works and always works well. Just a bit slower to shift as that long-cage RD makes up the extra chain-wrap.

[RPS]

Interesting idea.

However I'm wondering if you might need a larger sample size on your doubles riders... how fast were the riders in question? Seems to me you are right about how doubles riders shift from the small ring to the big ring. However when the group is fast I see riders very likely to cross chain from the big ring to some of the biggest cogs.. whereas slower riders will likely shift into the small ring more quickly without going down to the larger cogs first. Seems like it has an awful lot to do with a particular riders assessment of a hill/mountain and their personal ability to climb it. I know personally when I crest a hill I am first upshifting the rear deraiuller.. then at some point I simultaneously upshift the front & downshift the back so I minimize the gear change.

Also which shift are you talking about? Just going from a small chainring to a large chainring?

For what it's worth I probably shift like you mentioned.. only bike I have had with a triple is my MTB. I try really hard not to use the small ring.. but the gearing on my MTB is much shorter then a road equipped triple. My small ring is a 26.. if I have to use it the grade is likely >20% and I'm on dirt and there is a very very good chance I'm going to be walking soon. It's really a last resort.

But my Triple on my MTB shifts just fine.. it never drops the chain and it shifts pretty darn close to as quickly as the doubles I've had. (SRAM X.0 shifter, Shimano LX front der., Shimano XT crank/ring - not even matched!)

My experience so far is the compact double is the worst shifting setup.. but I need it so rarely I've probably not dialed it in as carefully.Ben, you are absolutely right that we’d need a larger sample if this were to be studied (like we don’t have better things to do :rolleyes: ). Not only that, but my own observation could easily be biased; hence why in science we require double blind testing for reliable results.

Anyway, riders I observed were mostly slow; much slower than riders I normally ride with – hence why so many had triples to handle the steep grades in the Texas Hill Country. Due to problems with my sight prior to March, I had not ridden more than a few hundred miles all year, so I was completely out of shape and carrying an extra 15 pounds. The pace was definitely slow.

I agree that stronger riders will often stay in the big ring and try to power over rollers, but that’s not what I was referring to. In that case if they change their mind (or the hill changes it for them) they downshift to the smaller ring. I’m referring to front up-shifts which in my experience is what most riders complain about being a little sluggish compared to doubles.

As you noted doing yourself, it’s almost unnatural to up-shift a double’s front while still on a large cog. Why would we do it? Other than to anticipate a sprint in a race, I can’t imagine the need. Even then I probably wouldn’t do it – I’d go partially up the cassette first and then hit the big ring.

Being way out of shape and using an 11-21 cassette on steep grades forced me to use the small ring hundreds of times over the week, so I had plenty of opportunities to try different combinations. I can’t speak for others, but I feel I can tell the difference when I try to up-shift against a crossed chain – whether on a triple or double.

What’s odd is that I would never do it on a double, but if I don’t think about it I’d do it on the triples quite often. I have no idea why -- must be in a big hurry to get out of the small ring although it isn’t all that much smaller than a compact’s.

[RPS]

There must be a reason road triples are either more finicky or that people just think they're more finicky, but I don't know what it is.In fairness to the “it must be the equipment side”, there are differences. In my opinion it’s mostly due to the front derailleur which can’t be optimized to perform equally as well with two distinct sets of chainring sizes. Clearances and curvatures for both the small-to-middle and middle-to-large can’t both be perfected to the same level.

Of these two, it’s my opinion that there are more compromises with the small-to-middle geometry. And in my experience shifting up to the middle ring is not quite as clean as going up to the big ring.

To compound this minor deficiency, chain tension is highest when using a smaller ring, so if we try to shift against a crossed chain we will need more force to push the chain over. I would not argue that triples shift equally as well as doubles, but for me they shift well enough as long as I don’t shift up against a crossed chain.

By the way, I’ve also found that shifting down prior to crossing the chain reduces the chances of dropping the chain to the inside. That was what I hated the most about triples when I first started riding them. Fortunately I haven't dropped the chain in a couple of years.

[Dave]

There is no reason to shift a triple any differently than a double. A wise person never shifts up to a bigger ring from a crossed chain position. If you're in the little ring and grade eases up, don't wait until you're in the 14T cog to shift back to the middle ring (and then 2 cogs larger). The exception would be a leveling of the road that obviously turned back up quickly.

In the opposite situation, when the road turns up, I will stay in the middle ring, up to the next to largest (9th) cog, before resorting to the little ring. The exception might be an often repeated climb where I know that the little ring will be needed. Even then, I'll at least use my third from largest cog before shifting to the little ring.

The thing I won't do for long is use my middle ring with the largest cog, or the big ring and either of the two largest cogs. Extreme chain lines should be avoided, IMO.

About the shifting speed, the shift from the little ring to the middle ring is rarely as fast as the middle ring to big ring shift. Can't say why that is, but that's the way it works with my Campy drivetrains. I can tell you that it takes a lot more FD travel to make this shift. It take 5 of the 7 clicks to execute this shift and at the end, at least 1-click of the thumb button is then required to recenter the cage, or it will be rubbing the left side of the chain. In contrast, the middle to big ring shift only requires 2-3 clicks and there is no need for a trim click after the shift, unless you were dumb and made the shift from a large cog.

[Tobias]

There is no reason to shift a triple any differently than a double. A wise person never shifts up to a bigger ring from a crossed chain position. If you're in the little ring and grade eases up, don't wait until you're in the 14T cog to shift back to the middle ring (and then 2 cogs larger).Is this not opposite of what is being implied; that a rider should shift to some smaller cogs first before shifting from the small to the middle ring? :confused:

I think what RPS is saying about a cross chain shift is the opposite; moving the chain with the front deraileur against the angle of the chain. This would occur if one shifted from the small to the middle ring while on a large cog like the 21T or 24T as an example, not the smaller cogs like a 14T. I think he is advocating waiting to get a neutral or positive chain line while you may be advocating the opposite.

I think there is a disconnect in wording in addition to possible disagreement on which way it's best to use a triple. Not sure.