Do I need a Triple?

menglish6 said:

So I just completed Cycle Oregon last week and was somewhat suprised by the hills. I have a double with 12-25 on the cassette and was able to complete them just fine but on one specifically (9% grade for ~10 miles) I felt like I was riding a rolling leg press up the hill. Muscle fatigue was definately the limiting factor on the hill, my lungs didn't feel _overly_ taxed. I felt as though I could have gone up the hill a fair bit faster if I'd been able to use a somewhat easier gear.

My question is this: I weigh ~220 (+/- 5) lb, I really have no intention of going below 215lb (I'm 6'6" and only want to be so skinny). So, barring weight loss would getting a triple (or just easier gearing) improve my speed up these types of hills? Given that I fully intend to develop and maintain superfluous muscle groups with regards to cycling is a 39x25 always going to be basically impossible for me to "spin" up a long steep hill?

Since u dont want to lose weight, I think triple is the only way to go besides, of course, the training you'll be doing to make you better. Good luck.

I think that your lung power is probably the limiting factor. Keeping muscles oxygenated under heavy load is a training regimen all by itself. I like a triple for steep pulls, or long grades into a stiff wind, or hauling a load in touring bags. You can get decent speed on the smallest chainring so shifting between chainrings as you level off after a climb is easy. The added weight of the ring itself is neglible. Most riders seem to forget that the best way to reduce weight is for the rider to diet, not remove parts from the bike.

I'm surprised how many of you guys are self-conscious over weight. I confess I have the same mentality but I imagine my cycling would improve quite a lot if I just let myself lose more weight. But, sure, I kind of feel too light at 178 (presently 185) or around, even though it would help my climbing if I became a vampire (as Armstrong coins it).
I ride a triple and they're terrific. My own is a Scott and the bike was made for me. Climbing in lower gears is far easier and it will solve your problem. However, if you train hard enough, I think you'll find you'll be able to do very steep hills in higher gears as you progress.
Myself I use my Carrera for the hard big gear sessions up hilly terrain and my Scott also for alpine work. I'm faster and stronger on the Scott and love the triple ring system.

menglish6 said:

So I just completed Cycle Oregon last week and was somewhat suprised by the hills. I have a double with 12-25 on the cassette and was able to complete them just fine but on one specifically (9% grade for ~10 miles) I felt like I was riding a rolling leg press up the hill. Muscle fatigue was definately the limiting factor on the hill, my lungs didn't feel _overly_ taxed. I felt as though I could have gone up the hill a fair bit faster if I'd been able to use a somewhat easier gear.

My question is this: I weigh ~220 (+/- 5) lb, I really have no intention of going below 215lb (I'm 6'6" and only want to be so skinny). So, barring weight loss would getting a triple (or just easier gearing) improve my speed up these types of hills? Given that I fully intend to develop and maintain superfluous muscle groups with regards to cycling is a 39x25 always going to be basically impossible for me to "spin" up a long steep hill?

The catch with going to a triple is that you only get two more lower gears. For those two gears you get a lot of adjustment headaches and much less quiet and smooth shifting.

I went the opposite way -- from a triple to a double -- and wouldn't go back. However you do have options for changing the cassette gears, e.g. an 11x23 that would definitely help your situation.

gruppo said:

The catch with going to a triple is that you only get two more lower gears. For those two gears you get a lot of adjustment headaches and much less quiet and smooth shifting.

I went the opposite way -- from a triple to a double -- and wouldn't go back. However you do have options for changing the cassette gears, e.g. an 11x23 that would definitely help your situation.

Gruppo, are you sure about that 11x23? menglish6 has a 12x25 on his double now and is asking about lowering his gearing. Wouldn't you mean something like the coveted 12x27?

Doctor Morbius said:

Gruppo, are you sure about that 11x23? menglish6 has a 12x25 on his double now and is asking about lowering his gearing. Wouldn't you mean something like the coveted 12x27?

Yep - thanks for catching that. I should learn not to read (or respond) to these forums too late at night.

I agree with the guys promoting the 12 - 27 cassette. A triple isnt going to get you much more on a climb except more weight and more shifting. Go out and put a bigger cassette on the back and practice climbing. I ride climbs that are significantly above 9% all the time and that setup works great.

menglish6 said:

My question is this: I weigh ~220 (+/- 5) lb, I really have no intention of going below 215lb (I'm 6'6" and only want to be so skinny). So, barring weight loss would getting a triple (or just easier gearing) improve my speed up these types of hills? Given that I fully intend to develop and maintain superfluous muscle groups with regards to cycling is a 39x25 always going to be basically impossible for me to "spin" up a long steep hill?

I am a big guy too (195 and 6'1"😉; I ride a triple, and love it, but I really hate it when my cadance gets low (I start to struggle if it gets under ~80)... Alternatively you could get a compact double (I think I would like one for my next bike, which is still a couple years away).

That said, if you are 6'6", you probably need really long cranks, and if your bike was not a custom job, you likely don't have them. Longer cranks will feel like lower gears (more tension in the chain for the same load at the pedal), and if you have really long legs you should be able to turn them without much trouble...

... Alternatively you could get a compact double

This is a good point. When building up an old 80's Univega Cr-Mo frame for a city bike, I put on a Dura Ace 50/39 crankset and 175 mm cranks. Even though the rear is only a 6 speed, I get plenty of leverage to counter the upright sitting position. To keep high end speed, faster cadence is required. Cadence of course is better for most applications than brute force.

tamman2000 said:

I am a big guy too (195 and 6'1"😉; I ride a triple, and love it, but I really hate it when my cadance gets low (I start to struggle if it gets under ~80)... Alternatively you could get a compact double (I think I would like one for my next bike, which is still a couple years away).

That said, if you are 6'6", you probably need really long cranks, and if your bike was not a custom job, you likely don't have them. Longer cranks will feel like lower gears (more tension in the chain for the same load at the pedal), and if you have really long legs you should be able to turn them without much trouble...

I actually do have 180mm cranks. I have a 66cm bike so I pretty much had to have it put together from scratch.

From the sounds of it I think the best thing for me (lowest cost and hassle) would be to think about getting a 12-27 and training on hills more. For the amount I actually face serious hills that sounds pretty good.

thanks again.

menglish6 said:

I actually do have 180mm cranks. I have a 66cm bike so I pretty much had to have it put together from scratch.

From the sounds of it I think the best thing for me (lowest cost and hassle) would be to think about getting a 12-27 and training on hills more. For the amount I actually face serious hills that sounds pretty good.

thanks again.

I'd say get the gears you need to perform best now. I got my first triple this year, and it's great on the long, steep climbs since it allows me to have options for gearing, cadence and HR. On my double, I just had to jam down to the big cog, stand up and grind it out. I never walked, but I suffered.

Your choice depends how often you climb 9% grades that go on for a mile, and what your overall power-to-weight ratio is. If you're a Cat 3 or above racer that can climb the mountain at 10 mph or more, 39/25 will work fine.

I can only sustain about 5-6 mph on a mountain like this without totally hitting redline. So for me, 30/25 works better....I can stay seated and keep the HR at 95%.

Concerning the penalty for a triple, about 100 grams, plus they do take a bit of extra care in setting up, but that's it. My DA triple with FSA chainrings shifts better than my Ultegra double ever did.

The other thing a triple buys you over a bigger cog in the back is closer gear ratios. I've got a 13-27, 7spd on the back right now and I occasionally find myself having to choose between a gear that's a bit too high or a bit too low. A 52/42/30 and a 12-25/9 will find its way onto my next bike.

Dean

Get a compact double and use an 11-23 cogset. Lower weight, better gearing. You don't need a triple unless you get over 15% grade.

menglish6 said:

I actually do have 180mm cranks. I have a 66cm bike so I pretty much had to have it put together from scratch.

At your height 180s are probably short (they are just right for most people my height), I think Zinn has some 202s that are probably about right for you.

you are right though, a new cassette is probably the easiest option...

At the end of the day, all mountain bikes have triple rings and bike mechanics tell me they fix mountain bike gears every day. So, I don't see why a triple road bike should cause any more snags than a mountain bike.
I found with my own triple that I very seldom need the smallest ring. However, the highest climb in my area does need the smallest ring so I make use of it. Unfortunately I seldom use my triple bike due to the weather over here (don't want to get a brand new bike whet). So, 80% of my cycling is done on a double ring and a different bike.
I think triples are probably a must for 200 lb riders but lighter guys probably can do without them.

gruppo said:

The catch with going to a triple is that you only get two more lower gears. For those two gears you get a lot of adjustment headaches and much less quiet and smooth shifting.

I went the opposite way -- from a triple to a double -- and wouldn't go back. However you do have options for changing the cassette gears, e.g. an 11x23 that would definitely help your situation.

Weisse Luft said:

Get a compact double and use an 11-23 cogset. Lower weight, better gearing. You don't need a triple unless you get over 15% grade.

Well, 15% is steep, and if you have to climb long 15% grades, it's hard to have a gear too low. A 34/23 wouldn't work nearly as well for me on a 15% grade as the 30/25 I've got now; a 30/30 option would be better.

If I want to climb seated and maintain a cadence of 75 rpm in your 34/23, I'll be climbing that 15% grade at almost 9 mph, requiring something over 500W of steady power output for my 190 lb of total bike and rider weight. Most of the pros can probably put out this wattage for 20 minutes, but I can't and won't ever be able to.

At the same 75 rpm, my 30/25 will let me slow to around 7 mph, cutting my power output back to around 400 watts. I can only sustain this kind of power for a few minutes before hitting HR redline, then have to slow down to less than 5 mph. Good thing we only have a few sustained 15% grades here!