Double vs Triple

[dhk]

Memph: It's true I am older and weaker than a lot of riders....but also stronger than some younger ones. My speed on the bike doesn't really determine my enjoyment of the sport or my self-worth as a human being.

I was joking about the equipment making up for 20 years. For the past 30 years, I've ridden two steel Raleighs...first a Gran Sport (Simplex 10 sp); now a 1992, 7 speed with downtube shifters. Although the bike is still working great, I decided I want to update the equipment.

Besides, great bikes are fun to ride and look at. And what do you consider an expensive bike, anyway? Is there some rule that says if I can't ride a 40K TT in an hour, or climb a 10% grade at 10 mph, I shouldn't have a certain level of bike?

If you get your jollies passing older riders on club rides, I understand, since I often enjoy passing younger ones. But, if you're really that competitive, why not race with guys your own age....seems to me beating them in a real race would be more rewarding than passing me on a club ride. (I would try to suck your wheel and hang on as long as possible of course).

Dan

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by dhk
Memph: It's true I am older and weaker than a lot of riders....but also stronger than some younger ones. My speed on the bike doesn't really determine my enjoyment of the sport or my self-worth as a human being.

I was joking about the equipment making up for 20 years. For the past 30 years, I've ridden two steel Raleighs...first a Gran Sport (Simplex 10 sp); now a 1992, 7 speed with downtube shifters. Although the bike is still working great, I decided I want to update the equipment.

Besides, great bikes are fun to ride and look at. And what do you consider an expensive bike, anyway? Is there some rule that says if I can't ride a 40K TT in an hour, or climb a 10% grade at 10 mph, I shouldn't have a certain level of bike?

If you get your jollies passing older riders on club rides, I understand, since I often enjoy passing younger ones. But, if you're really that competitive, why not race with guys your own age....seems to me beating them in a real race would be more rewarding than passing me on a club ride. (I would try to suck your wheel and hang on as long as possible of course).

Dan

Hey it is your $$ and your life. Purchase what-ever, just a statement I threw out.

As written below my handle. I mainly train alone. Differcult to tell the age of a rider from a distance. Not until I quickly hunt them down, can I tell their age, sex, race, etc. Then I smirk as I notice weaker riders on expensive bikes.

So I do not drop older riders on group rides. When I do go for group rides. It is to keep my group skills sharp. So I stay with the main pack as long as possible.

Use to race JR/Cat2, until a mishap. Now getting back into it after 7 years off the bike. Attempting to race again this spring....

Memph

 

[el Ingles]

Funny isn´t it that the guys with the atitude and the mouth never seem to be around when the club has work to be done , they love to criticise how the clubs run but help out ?
Seems to be even worse among north americans than here in Europe , and I thought it was just the yanks with an attitude problem , grow up and go home .
No a la Guerra , and trust in Allah .

 

[ccdriver]

Originally posted by Memphmann
Another older weak rider on an expensive bike. Great equipment does not make up for age or physical weakness. It sure is fun blowing by you guys....

So are you saying that older riders should not be riding.
Some people just like nice things, pride of ownership.
Have you thought about seeking professional help.
I guess the good thing about the internet is we can be anything we want to be . cat2, cat1? Who cares.

 

[cmitch46]

Yea, its the motor that counts. So what else is new?

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by ccdriver

Originally posted by Memphmann
Another older weak rider on an expensive bike. Great equipment does not make up for age or physical weakness. It sure is fun blowing by you guys....

So are you saying that older riders should not be riding.
Some people just like nice things, pride of ownership.
Have you thought about seeking professional help.
I guess the good thing about the internet is we can be anything we want to be . cat2, cat1? Who cares.

Older riders can ride, weaker riders can ride, anyone can ride, heck everyone can ride. Less vehicles on the road to hit me and more game to hunt down.

Sure, for all you know I could be a fat pig. The few ppl on this site who ride with me, know the truth. That is all that matters.....

Memph

 

[Geonz]

You guys are so silly...

having fun blowing by people doesn't mean you think they sghouldn't be out there -- obviously it's fun to blow by them!

Strut, strut, strut...

 

[J-V]

I just converted my 1994 Trek 5200 OCLV (the original model year!) to 2003 Dura-Ace, and one of the reasons was to get better gearing. I went with an XT rear D, and an XT 11-32 cassette (the hills can be big around here, and I'm closing in on 40!). It's worked out great, and I'm glad I didn't go the triple route due to all the redundant and unusable gears.

 

[dhk]

Originally posted by warnerjh
I just converted my 1994 Trek 5200 OCLV (the original model year!) to 2003 Dura-Ace, and one of the reasons was to get better gearing. I went with an XT rear D, and an XT 11-32 cassette (the hills can be big around here, and I'm closing in on 40!). It's worked out great, and I'm glad I didn't go the triple route due to all the redundant and unusable gears.

Another good option. On the other hand, I like the 42 tooth middle ring with 12-25 vs the 39 w/13-26 I now have. I had the 42 for many years, and switched down to the 39 to get lower. But, still like the 42 overall for middle range. On a good day, in a paceline situation, won't need to go back and forth to the big ring as often.

Dan

 

[labicci]

I like to climb out of the saddle, dancing on the pedal. I like to climb seated, pushing a big gear. I also like to climb seated and spinning a granny gear.

Cycling can be enjoyed in so many ways, each of which adds to the overall satisfaction that we could obtained from this great sport, and there is no way that I am going to limit my gearing choice just because I want to look more like a racing cyclist (BTW even pros sometimes go triple for certain stages of races) .

That said the choice of whether going double or triple is indeed limited by the chainstay length of my bike frame. All of the bikes that I own have rather short chainstay which are good for climbing or sprinting but not good for triple crankset. If I had a longer chainstay road racing bike or even a touring bike then I would install a triple crankset without hesitation.

It just feels good to be able to exploit the full potential of everything.

LB

 

[davidbod]

Originally posted by warnerjh
I just converted my 1994 Trek 5200 OCLV (the original model year!) to 2003 Dura-Ace, and one of the reasons was to get better gearing. I went with an XT rear D, and an XT 11-32 cassette (the hills can be big around here, and I'm closing in on 40!). It's worked out great, and I'm glad I didn't go the triple route due to all the redundant and unusable gears.

Here is a good example of why a tripple is better than a double. Forget style and think mechanics. The first group below is for a 39X53 double with an 11-32 cassette. The second group is for a 30X39X53 tripple with an 11-21 cassette. The speed at 80 rpm is for a crank length of 172.5 mm and a 700 x 23 tire. The speed difference is the percentage difference from the lower to next highest gear. I have marked changes of around 2.5% difference or less in speed as not enough change to signify a unique gear (marked as an X).

As you can see the double with 11-32 has 14 unique gears while the tripple 11-21 has 18. The range of gears is nearly the same with the 11-32 giving one lower gear. Also the average difference between the useable gears is 10.6% vs 6.7% giving the tripple much closer gear ratios.

Forgetting style and the 3.5 Oz of weight difference I can put together a tripple cassette combo that will mechanically beat any double cassette combo you can dream up.

Gear Speed Diff Usable
32X39 7.6 0% 1
28X39 8.7 14.5% 2
24X39 10.2 17.2% 3
32X53 10.4 2.0% X
21X39 11.6 11.5% 4
28X53 11.8 1.7% X
18X39 13.6 15.3% 5
24X53 13.8 1.5% X
16X39 15.2 10.1% 6
21X53 15.8 3.9% 7
14X39 17.4 10.1% 8
18X53 18.4 5.7% 9
12X39 20.3 10.3% 10
16X53 20.7 2.0% X
11X39 22.2 7.2% 11
14X53 23.7 6.8% 12
12X53 27.6 16.5% 13
11X53 30.1 9.1% 14
10.6% = average speed difference between usable gears

Gear Speed Diff Usable
21X30 8.9 0% 1
19X30 9.9 11.2% 2
17X30 11.0 11.1% 3
21X39 11.6 5.5% 4
16X30 11.7 0.9% X
15X30 12.5 6.8% 5
19X39 12.8 2.4% X
14X30 13.4 4.7% 6
17X39 14.3 6.7% 7
13X30 14.4 0.7% X
16X39 15.2 5.6% 8
12X30 15.6 2.6% X
21X53 15.8 1.3% X
15X39 16.3 3.2% 9
11X30 17.1 4.9% 10
14X39 17.4 1.8% X
19X53 17.4 0.0% X
13X39 18.8 8.0% 11
17X53 19.5 3.7% 12
12X39 20.3 4.1% 13
16X53 20.7 2.0% X
15X53 22.1 6.8% 14
11X39 22.2 0.5% X
14X53 23.7 6.8% 15
13X53 25.5 7.6% 16
12X53 27.6 8.2% 17
11X53 30.1 9.1% 18
6.7% = average speed difference between usable gears

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by davidbod
Here is a good example of why a tripple is better than a double. Forget style and think mechanics. The first group below is for a 39X53 double with an 11-32 cassette. The second group is for a 30X39X53 tripple with an 11-21 cassette. The speed at 80 rpm is for a crank length of 172.5 mm and a 700 x 23 tire. The speed difference is the percentage difference from the lower to next highest gear. I have marked changes of around 2.5% difference or less in speed as not enough change to signify a unique gear (marked as an X).

As you can see the double with 11-32 has 14 unique gears while the tripple 11-21 has 18. The range of gears is nearly the same with the 11-32 giving one lower gear. Also the average difference between the useable gears is 10.6% vs 6.7% giving the tripple much closer gear ratios.

Forgetting style and the 3.5 Oz of weight difference I can put together a tripple cassette combo that will mechanically beat any double cassette combo you can dream up.

Gear Speed Diff Usable
32X39 7.6 0% 1
28X39 8.7 14.5% 2
24X39 10.2 17.2% 3
32X53 10.4 2.0% X
21X39 11.6 11.5% 4
28X53 11.8 1.7% X
18X39 13.6 15.3% 5
24X53 13.8 1.5% X
16X39 15.2 10.1% 6
21X53 15.8 3.9% 7
14X39 17.4 10.1% 8
18X53 18.4 5.7% 9
12X39 20.3 10.3% 10
16X53 20.7 2.0% X
11X39 22.2 7.2% 11
14X53 23.7 6.8% 12
12X53 27.6 16.5% 13
11X53 30.1 9.1% 14
10.6% = average speed difference between usable gears

Gear Speed Diff Usable
21X30 8.9 0% 1
19X30 9.9 11.2% 2
17X30 11.0 11.1% 3
21X39 11.6 5.5% 4
16X30 11.7 0.9% X
15X30 12.5 6.8% 5
19X39 12.8 2.4% X
14X30 13.4 4.7% 6
17X39 14.3 6.7% 7
13X30 14.4 0.7% X
16X39 15.2 5.6% 8
12X30 15.6 2.6% X
21X53 15.8 1.3% X
15X39 16.3 3.2% 9
11X30 17.1 4.9% 10
14X39 17.4 1.8% X
19X53 17.4 0.0% X
13X39 18.8 8.0% 11
17X53 19.5 3.7% 12
12X39 20.3 4.1% 13
16X53 20.7 2.0% X
15X53 22.1 6.8% 14
11X39 22.2 0.5% X
14X53 23.7 6.8% 15
13X53 25.5 7.6% 16
12X53 27.6 8.2% 17
11X53 30.1 9.1% 18
6.7% = average speed difference between usable gears

Wow, that was alot of work on your end, thanx.

Call me old fashion, but I have an 8spd STI and only really use 12 gears. That is enough for me. The triple is out of the question and I feel the new 10spd is too many. Sure my RPM may differ on climbs than flats. Not enough that it has ever hurt me. I get up them the same as others using a lower gear who spin faster. Am no worse for where. Have yet to locate a mt where a triple is needed. That again we are all ride different and are at different levels.

I just remember a few weeks ago. I catch this dude who was spinning roughly the same as I on a flat. At first could not figure out how I caught him so quickly. Until I looked down and noticed he was in his baby ring. Still do not know why he was using that low a gear. I would
never use a triple.....

Memph
Memph

 

[tanggoman]

Originally posted by sathomasga
I'm in the same boat. Have done many centuries but avoided 6 gap. Next year, though, I'm going for it. I've got an Ultegra double with 12-27 in the back, but even that's not low enough for 6 gap for me (YMMV). I've thought about a triple, but I really like how well the double shifts, and I make extensive use of the trim settings on the front. I'm concerned that a triple will lose both. (Well, I know it will lose the trim settings.)

The tentative plan I've got now is to put a FSA Compact Pro double on the front. It's a 34/50, which should get me up the hills in good shape. I want to talk to the LBS, however, to make sure that an Ultegra front shifter can handle a 16 tooth difference without compromising the shifts. I recall reading somewhere that 14 teeth was the max, but that may be out-dated. The folks at FSA claim no problems, but I still want to check. Another option is to build a TSA crank, in which case I'd go with a 36/50.

Stephen

I just installed the FSA Compact Pro replacing my Ultegra 53/39 cranks. It looks sweet and awesome! No problems with the compatibility with smaller CRs as my FD is a braze-on (I dont know with clamp-on). Just have to cut the chain a few links to compensate for a smaller CRs. Besides that, shifts very well, so far so good... I'm all set to take Alp d'huez next spring...

 

[JohnO]

There now, it's not strutting if it's true. Why, I remember when I was a wee lad out dropping those pretentious 10 speed riders on my Big Wheel... and it was only a single speed...

 

[labicci]

Isn't this a tech corner ? Why are there so many posts about who is stronger than who, and who is dropping who ? That's not what we are interested in !

For those who think less is better than more, and single speed is the best, fine. Just read some history on the development of cycling, and see how racing cyclists once refused to accept derailleur, but in the end found out that touring cyclists who use derailleur rides faster than these racers.

And all arguments seem to be centred around the assumption that triple provide a lower gear than double. Triple means wider gear range, but not necessarily lower. You can in theory get a single speed which is the lowest of all. Don't forget that the lowest gear is determined by the size of the smallest chainring and the largest cog, not by the number of chainrings or cogs.

Why triple ? It is cooler, if not better. Image what Lance thinks when he who like to spin a smaller gear could at best get a Shimano 2 x 10 with a lowest gear of say 39 x 28 when you could get a Record 3 x 10 speed with a lot more options.

Yes triple is more complicated, and therefore may not suit everyone. For those who own the Record triple, enjoy the fun of shifting from one chainring to another with so much swiftness.

L.B.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by labicci
Isn't this a tech corner ? Why are there so many posts about who is stronger than who, and who is dropping who ? That's not what we are interested in !

For those who think less is better than more, and single speed is the best, fine. Just read some history on the development of cycling, and see how racing cyclists once refused to accept derailleur, but in the end found out that touring cyclists who use derailleur rides faster than these racers.

And all arguments seem to be centred around the assumption that triple provide a lower gear than double. Triple means wider gear range, but not necessarily lower. You can in theory get a single speed which is the lowest of all. Don't forget that the lowest gear is determined by the size of the smallest chainring and the largest cog, not by the number of chainrings or cogs.

Why triple ? It is cooler, if not better. Image what Lance thinks when he who like to spin a smaller gear could at best get a Shimano 2 x 10 with a lowest gear of say 39 x 28 when you could get a Record 3 x 10 speed with a lot more options.

Yes triple is more complicated, and therefore may not suit everyone. For those who own the Record triple, enjoy the fun of shifting from one chainring to another with so much swiftness.

L.B.

What is wrong with a Shimano triple? Not that I'm defending the triple. But why not a Shimano???

Memph

 

[boudreaux]

Originally posted by Memphmann
What is wrong with a Shimano triple? Not that I'm defending the triple. But why not a Shimano???

Memph

Nothing......It's just different. And with all due reaspect to the previous poster and quick shifting of the record triple,it actually takes a bit more thought and concentration to hit the middle ring,since campy uss a fine ratchet mechaism in the shifter rather than prue 'no think' indexing like shimano. A campy triple may be a bit easier to setup and keep running than a shimano,again,just because of the difference in how thay work and a bit more tolerance of the campy for a bit of mis adjustment. The ratchet mechanism in the campy front allows for more trim options too. Campy gives more chainring options,one being the 50 40 30 record option, assuming it is of any real value to you.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by boudreaux
Nothing......It's just different. And with all due reaspect to the previous poster and quick shifting of the record triple,it actually takes a bit more thought and concentration to hit the middle ring,since campy uss a fine ratchet mechaism in the shifter rather than prue 'no think' indexing like shimano. A campy triple may be a bit easier to setup and keep running than a shimano,again,just because of the difference in how thay work and a bit more tolerance of the campy for a bit of mis adjustment. The ratchet mechanism in the campy front allows for more trim options too. Campy gives more chainring options,one being the 50 40 30 record option, assuming it is of any real value to you.

Thanx for that explanation. Shall keep this in mind...

Memph

 

[labicci]

I know that Shimano produces Triple as well, even for DuraAce, but that is before the introduction of the new 10-speed system.

Has anyone see the DuraAce 3 x 10 system yet ? Anyway from the experience of Record, the 9-speed triple should work with the 10-speed system without too much trouble.

L.B.

 

[retrogeek]

I love triple crank set ups so I am reposting this from another thread to add my two cents worth to the dicussion. I wouldn't worry too much about the weight issue when putting together a bike, a good set up and a good fit for "you" are more important than grams and ounces.

I use a triple chainring to get a more even spread across the gearing range, rather than only using it for beating big hills. 90% of the time I will just use an 12-21 rear cog-set and adjust the gearing range by swaping out various combinations of front chainrings.

For the flats and rolling hills I will use a 50-42-32 front chainring setup for a close and even spread of gears, at 44 I can no longer push a 53/12 for any great length of time so I don't even bother to try any more, and a 32/21 is plenty low enough for this purpose.

For bigger hills I will use a 53-39-30 front chainring setup (53 for the downhills only), as a 30/21 is approximately equal to a 39/27-28. If I need anything lower geared than this (which I seldom do) I will then put on an 12-23 rear cogset, as a 30/23 is approximately equal to a 39/30.

I use a bar-end shifter for the front derailier since I have never felt comfortable with Ergopower or Dual Control front shifters, it's just a personal preference.