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 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: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.
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: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.
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:The weight difference can be up to about 1lb, which is fairly significant.
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: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.
I'm not buying 6/10 of a pound either. That's 9 1/2 ounces.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.
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:I'm not buying 6/10 of a pound either. That's 9 1/2 ounces.
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.
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: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.L
Eden 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. /QUOTE]
That would be my advice too.
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: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.
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: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.
Add a 4th (5th?) vote for a Compact (I think I already voted, but as they say, "Vote early and often...")
L
Eden said: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.
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.
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: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
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.