im new to cycling and wanted to know what the pros and cons are of having a double/triple crank. are doubles meant for sprints and triples for climbs? thanks.
Double vs. Triple cranks
- Thread starter Frankie Dirtbag
- Start date
Double cranks look raceier, triple cranks make a wider range of gears available. Any weight difference is tiny and, when properly set up, there is no shift performance difference.Frankie Dirtbag said:
hmmm - must disagree. Triples are great if you are riding casually or touring, but from experience I can say they are a liability in a race situation. The shifting is slower - not by a huge amount, but by enough that it can open a gap on a climb if you are fussing with the shifters to get from the small ring to the middle one. The weight difference can be up to about 1lb, which is fairly significant. I've also found that if I drop the chain with my double I can flick it back on very easily - with the old triple I usually had to get off and put it back on.Retro Grouch said:
Compromise. Get a compact double crankset. You'll get triple-like gearing that is more suitable for us mortals. Most of us are not pros, so why try to use the same gears they do? You'll get most of the advantages of a standard double - less weight, the proper look, good chainline, ease of recovering from a chain-drop like Eden mentioned. There's no shame in it. I run a compact. A VERY strong riding partner (former pro, recent Giro d'Italia and Tour de France veteran) also uses a compact. Neither of us are likely to go back to a standard double anytime soon.
That's crazy. You're going to have to show me where that pound of weight difference is because I don't believe it. Using Ultegra double vs. triple components I get 32 grams difference. That's a LONG way from a pound. It's just a bit over an ounce.Eden said:
Not my statistic, though looking back I did overstate - the person whom I'm referring to said it added .6 lb to the bike weight to change to the triple, which includes new bb, front derailleur and longer chain so the total weight added up in the end.Retro Grouch said:
Don't forget the long-cage rear deraileur, which is usually required with a triple. A few grams there too, probably. But really, the weight difference should definitely NOT be the deciding factor, because really the difference is trivial. It's all about having the right gear ratios that work for YOU. In my biased opinion, a compact gives you the best of both.
My vote is with the triple. It means for the older rider (55+) closer gears on the rear (13-23 9 speed) and a tighter range of cadence resulting in a smoother heart rate and less fatigue. And not having to give up your seat on the hills or the bus or train. 
I'm not buying 6/10 of a pound either. That's 9 1/2 ounces.Eden said:
The bottom bracket difference is 5 grams, the crankset difference is 27 grams, 10 grams for a long cage rear derailleur and the front derailleur is a wash. That's still under 2 ounces. I don't understand why anybody would think that a triple requires a longer chain. The big/big chainring combination drives chain length so where's the difference?
I don't have any issues with double cranksets, I just don't see this huge performance or weight difference. The OP stated he was new to cycling and I'll stand by my original statement for his purposes. One's raceier looking, the other provides a wider range of gear ratios.
And I've nothing against triples - rode them myself for years and if I was setting up a loaded touring bike I might still go that way - though a compact double on a 10 speed may just get all the same gear ratios that I had on my old 9 speed triple - I'd have to look it up on a calculator.Retro Grouch said:
On my racing bike - I really do race, I would never put a triple on. So if OP is at all interested in racing - it is a bit vague, but leans that way I would say don't go there - use a regular or compact double, instead of a triple. I've been there done that. The first bike I raced had a triple and I found that it was definitely a liability. The performance difference isn't earth shattering, but it only takes a moment of hesitation to lose contact with the group on a climb - and you only need to drop your chain once during a race to not want to do it again. If you don't have to worry about that, then you won't notice the slight lag in the shifting that you can get with a triple. I've also found that any fears I had that I might not be strong enough to use a regular double on any terrain were very much unfounded.
RetroGrouch,
One thing you might be overlooking is that on many bikes that come stock with a triple, use lower end/heavier componets as they are geared (no pun intended) towards newer riders. When folks "upgrade" to a double, then quite often they go with better components that originally came with the bike. This could be the difference in weight. Heck, just changing out shifters, BB, wheels and crank, I shaved over 3lbs from my old bike (a good protion of that was in the crank and BB. The rest was in the wheels). BTW, I put on a 53x39x30 FSA carbon triple on that bike (it's now my wife's). My bike has a FSA compact double (50x34 w/ 23/11). I love the close ratio casette I'm able to run with the compact.
L
One thing you might be overlooking is that on many bikes that come stock with a triple, use lower end/heavier componets as they are geared (no pun intended) towards newer riders. When folks "upgrade" to a double, then quite often they go with better components that originally came with the bike. This could be the difference in weight. Heck, just changing out shifters, BB, wheels and crank, I shaved over 3lbs from my old bike (a good protion of that was in the crank and BB. The rest was in the wheels). BTW, I put on a 53x39x30 FSA carbon triple on that bike (it's now my wife's). My bike has a FSA compact double (50x34 w/ 23/11). I love the close ratio casette I'm able to run with the compact.
L
That has little to do with the difference between a double and a triple. That's the difference between cheap, heavy components and more expensive, lightweight components.Lonnie Utah said:
Right, and I'm not arguing that point (2x vs 3x). I guess what I'm saying is that could explain where one comes up with 0.6 of a pound in a crank switch, which you kinda beat Eden up for.Retro Grouch said:
Add a 4th (5th?) vote for a Compact (I think I already voted, but as they say, "Vote early and often...")
L
I couldn't tell you - the figure came from someone else who had a 3 week old bike totaled in a car vs bike accident. When she had the bike replaced she opted for the same frame, but decided she wanted a triple rather than the double she had originally. She said that she was kind of dismayed to find out that she also gained .6 lbs over the original set up. I figure that's enough to make a difference, especially if you are little like me (102 lbs!). I think she may have been running Campy originally and her only change was to go with the triple set up rather than the double- same gruppo.Lonnie Utah said:
Eden said:
I'll add my 2 euro centimes' worth... Just converted my training bike to triple and built the wife's latest bike as triple too (both Campag), 'cos we're riding up the Joux Plane in a couple of weeks and I think we'll need all the help we can get. I've never ridden a triple before, and had no preconceptions at all.
If it weren't for the mountains coming up, I'd convert 'em right back again. Someone said there was no difference in shift performance but I beg to differ – the shift is noticeably less precise (and yes, I do know how to set it up), both front and rear, partly I'm sure because of the extra length of chain wobbling around. Someone said the chain was no longer for a triple - wrong: the longer cage needs an extra few links of chain. Both c'sets (one Campag Centaur, one FSA) are 30/42/52, but the gap between the 30 and 42 seems cavernous, to the point that I never drop down to the 30 at all in normal riding. I've also unshipped the chain twice since converting my bike to triple, something I haven't done in living memory...
If I were doing it again, and not thinking of heading up a mountain, I'd probably go for a compact.
I agree about the gaps on the triples, 30/42/53, the 30-42 is big, so I ordered a 36 tooth inner today for the try bike.
I am waiting for this topic to argue the pros and cons of weight saving of a regular double (130pcd 39/53) compared with a compact double (110pcd 34/50), there must be a few grammes in it.
I am waiting for this topic to argue the pros and cons of weight saving of a regular double (130pcd 39/53) compared with a compact double (110pcd 34/50), there must be a few grammes in it.
gclark8 said:I agree about the gaps on the triples, 30/42/53, the 30-42 is big, so I ordered a 36 tooth inner today for the try bike.
I am waiting for this topic to argue the pros and cons of weight saving of a regular double (130pcd 39/53) compared with a compact double (110pcd 34/50), there must be a few grammes in it.
On Weight weenies an FSA SLK Mega EXO compact 175mm 50/34 incl. propritary BB, stock out of the box is 809gr and the 53/39 is 787gr.
Dura-ace 175mm 53/39 incl. BSA BB (98 g) & bolts is 779gr.
I've gone for the FSA SLK Mega EXO compact 175mm 50/34 on my new road bike. All I need to do now is to finish putting it together so I can see how if I like the compact crank.
Cheers
Geoff
I have a regular double and a compact double. Save for a slight difference in top tube length, they are set up the same. I do more training on the regular (12-23 cassette even over the "rougher" hills). So when I get home (I travel a lot with the regular double) and get on the compact, even with an 11-23, it feels a bit easy. Honestly, I got a compact double because of curiousity and all the hype and buzz. I'm thinking of getting a regular double instead and save the compact for really hilly charity rides and/or early season riding.geoffs said:
All in all, I do like the compact, but I would be just as happy with a regular; I think the newness has worn off. My first ever road bike was a triple, but I've gotten so much stronger. The challenge for myself is to try and not use whatever the lowest gear I have is on whatever cassette I happen to be running. I have 2 sets of cassettes for both bikes with 23, 25 & 27 as the lowest gears. I vacillate between the 25 and 23 on both.
Its very much a personal choice, I use a triple, but use taller gearing 53/42/30 with a 9 speed 11-21. On Saturday I did a hill climb ride with the club and didn't go lower than the 42-21. Having said that the 30 should come in handy in special situations. If I didn't have the triple, I would probably go for 53/39 with 11-23 on the rear, so the triple lets me run tigher gearing without concern of being overgeared.
