Triple to Double



Feanor

New Member
Jul 21, 2003
256
4
18
Hey all!

There's been quite a bit of talk and discussion about going from doubles to triples in regard to things like age, injury, knees etc...

But I'm curious about the people that have gone the seemingly less travelled road of Triple to Double?

My bike came with the ultegra triple group and it has worked well, very well... I used the small chainring up front for parts of the hill portions of my regular rides quite a while back, but "hopefully" owing to the fact that I've been working at improving over the last year, I find myself not using the 30 ring at all now... ever... and even when I was using it, it was always for a short time only, a short recovery period during an ascent as it were.

People on one side say to keep it because it adds very little weight these days, and the deraillers have gotten to the point where the shifting with long cages rivals that of the short cage deraillers. Additionally they add the "you never know" factor when it comes to a time where the lower gearing would help tremendously...

On the other side, club-mates say, if I'm strong enough not to need it for the riding I do, then go to the double and get even stronger, the shifting will be more crisp and accurate, I could shed some weight and the mechanicals would be a bit more reliable... They add that if it turns out to be a bit much, I could go with a 12-25 cogset replacing the 11-23...

I know that the triples have come a long way in reliable shifting and less weight over the stuff available years ago, and perhaps the opinions from those years ago are coloring my judgement, but wouldn;t the doubles at the same time also be benefitting from those advances as well?

I'm not a competitive cyclist by any means, but for the moderate hills I tackle in normal riding the 30 ring is now dead weight, and some riders have even suggested that the reduced q-factor of the doubles (reduced crank width without the small chainring) often helps with the knees and pedalling efficiency...

Any thoughts?
 

DiabloScott

New Member
May 15, 2003
2,284
4
38
Hey Feanor - I've never had a triple on a road bike but I'll give you some more to think about.

Just as with going the other way it's an expensive conversion; unless you keep your triple-sized derailleurs and shifters you'll be spending around $400 for components and if you do change only the crank you'll still be spending over a hundred and you won't see ANY improvement in shifting.

As you get stronger and lighter you may find yourself wanting to tackle bigger and steeper hills than you do now and you may need that granny ring - it would be a shame if you decided NOT to try hillier rides because you took off the triple.

Some day you'll want another bike and you will be able to justify it because you've gotten so strong and fast and you can get one with a double and you can keep your triple bike to use when you need the ultra-low gears for Diablo and Hamilton!
 

boudreaux

New Member
Oct 16, 2003
5,133
0
0
Originally posted by Feanor
Hey all!

There's been quite a bit of talk and discussion about going from doubles to triples in regard to things like age, injury, knees etc...

But I'm curious about the people that have gone the seemingly less travelled road of Triple to Double?

My bike came with the ultegra triple group and it has worked well, very well... I used the small chainring up front for parts of the hill portions of my regular rides quite a while back, but "hopefully" owing to the fact that I've been working at improving over the last year, I find myself not using the 30 ring at all now... ever... and even when I was using it, it was always for a short time only, a short recovery period during an ascent as it were.

People on one side say to keep it because it adds very little weight these days, and the deraillers have gotten to the point where the shifting with long cages rivals that of the short cage deraillers. Additionally they add the "you never know" factor when it comes to a time where the lower gearing would help tremendously...

On the other side, club-mates say, if I'm strong enough not to need it for the riding I do, then go to the double and get even stronger, the shifting will be more crisp and accurate, I could shed some weight and the mechanicals would be a bit more reliable... They add that if it turns out to be a bit much, I could go with a 12-25 cogset replacing the 11-23...

I know that the triples have come a long way in reliable shifting and less weight over the stuff available years ago, and perhaps the opinions from those years ago are coloring my judgement, but wouldn;t the doubles at the same time also be benefitting from those advances as well?

I'm not a competitive cyclist by any means, but for the moderate hills I tackle in normal riding the 30 ring is now dead weight, and some riders have even suggested that the reduced q-factor of the doubles (reduced crank width without the small chainring) often helps with the knees and pedalling efficiency...

Any thoughts?
you are never going to get the answer from someone else. To make a double setup like it came out of the factory ,you need crankset,BB front and rear derailers. a cheaper way is get a double BB,toss the granny off your crank and replace the 42 with a 39.
 

Feanor

New Member
Jul 21, 2003
256
4
18
Thanks for the insight and info guys!

I guess I should have clarified, but I didn't want the email to drone on as I am wont to do :)

I've come into a new frame (Bianchi EV3) and I am in the process of building it up... It will take a while as everything is pretty expensive no matter which way I go, but my decision paths
are:

stripping my current bike and putting those parts on the Bianchi, and then building up the Trek with 2004 Dura Ace 10 double

or

Buying another Ultegra triple group and putting it on the Bianchi...

So there are really no issue with pieces/parts as I will be getting the entire group... Sorry to not have been more specific...

You both did raise some great upgrading points though! and with what I am ultimately doing it looks like I've taken care of both your concerns :)

So right now I'm trying to balance the issues of wether or not the double group is really more mechanically sound, if I really should keep the triple despite supposed drawbacks, if the doubles q-factor is even a consideration at all... etc...

Thanks!