Triples - What's The Big Deal?

[Rick Warner]

Turn the question around. Why not have a triple? On a new bike there is almost no cost advantage of
a double over a triple ($25-30; not much on a $1000+ purchase). You cannot go a low in gearing with
a double as a triple, so there is less bottom end if you hit a spot where you need it.

As someone getting up in years with knees that have seen much better days, I am glad the triple is
there when I need it. On a good day, I can spin fine up most of the hills around here in the middle
chainring. But the knee gets a bit testy, and I have the option to drop down to lower gears.

I cannot see why anyone would buy a new bike with only a double; the only advantage is the minimal
weight savings, but you can achieve that in most cases by eating a bit less and dropping a few
ounces off the body (since the important weight to consider is bike+rider, not just bike).

- rick warner

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Rick Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Turn the question around. Why not have a triple? On a new bike there is almost no cost advantage
> of a double over a triple ($25-30; not much on a $1000+ purchase). You cannot go a low in gearing
> with a double as a triple, so there is less bottom end if you hit a spot where you need it.
>
> As someone getting up in years with knees that have seen much better days, I am glad the triple is
> there when I need it. On a good day, I can spin fine up most of the hills around here in the
> middle chainring. But the
knee
> gets a bit testy, and I have the option to drop down to lower gears.
>
> I cannot see why anyone would buy a new bike with only a double; the only advantage is the minimal
> weight savings, but you can achieve that in most cases by eating a bit less and dropping a few
> ounces off the body (since
the
> important weight to consider is bike+rider, not just bike).
>

Not that I recommend it for everyone, but I ride a 52/42 x 13-23 in Northern Illinois and I have low
enough gears. If I need lower I still have the option of either running the rear up to 29 or
dropping the front a bit with my 110bcd crank. I have ridden some tough hills and mountains and,
I'll admit, 42x23 is challenging.

--
Robin Hubert <[email protected]

 

[Raptor]

Raymo853 wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>US Postal and several other teams used triples on climbing stages in the Tour and Vuelta, and that
>>made it okay.
>>
>
>
>
> Is this true? I thought it was they ran 52-39 or 52-38 cranks with 11-27 stock and 11-28 custom
> made cassettes. The rumors were of triples but in the end none materialized.

We were told that many/most teams equipped their bikes with triples for the climb up the
Angliru during last year's Vuelta. It makes sense for a 24% cow path with asphalt on it, even
for a pro rider.

That was some epic bike racing, with visibility 50' and team cars getting stuck on the climb.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "Let me tell you what else I'm worried about. I'm
worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our
view of the military is for the military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and therefore,
prevent war from happening in the first place." George Bush, Nov. 6, 2000

 

[Steve Juniper]

While you're at it, why not go for an XT 11-34 derailleur and cassette (an easy and relatively cheap
switch from Ultegra or...)?

Bike dealers seem to want to treat all buyers as 25 year old racer wannabees. If you live in a hilly
area (our hills here in Berkeley go up to about 33%), 11-34 - even with a triple - gives the rider a
very wide range. You don't have to use the lower gearing, but you have it when you need it and/or
want it, and you've got the same higher gears as anyone else. No downside for most riders.
--
Steve Juniper "Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A
minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is
irresistable when it clogs by its whole weight." -- Henry Thoreau --

"Rick Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... Turn the question around. Why not have a
triple? On a new bike there is almost no cost advantage of a double over a triple ($25-30; not much
on a $1000+ purchase). You cannot go a low in gearing with a double as a triple, so there is less
bottom end if you hit a spot where you need it.

As someone getting up in years with knees that have seen much better days, I am glad the triple is
there when I need it. On a good day, I can spin fine up most of the hills around here in the middle
chainring. But the knee gets a bit testy, and I have the option to drop down to lower gears.

I cannot see why anyone would buy a new bike with only a double; the only advantage is the minimal
weight savings, but you can achieve that in most cases by eating a bit less and dropping a few
ounces off the body (since the important weight to consider is bike+rider, not just bike).

- rick warner

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I've been doing a casual test on the hill leading up to my house. It's over 10% over a mile, with
> a short stretch much steeper than that. It takes about the same amount of time sitting or
> standing, in the biggest gear I can sustain comfortably either way. The gear I use standing is
> within normal road bike range, while the gear I use seated is a little lower than most road bikes
> have. I prefer the seated solution.

That's all well & good, but which looks more impressive to people seeing you climb? Those
itty-bitty-gear-grinders just don't look like they're working half as hard as those who are grunting
it out standing. It's all about image, man, get with the program!!!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[W K]

"Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Raymo853 wrote:
> > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>US Postal and several other teams used triples on climbing stages in the Tour and Vuelta, and
> >>that made it okay.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this true? I thought it was they ran 52-39 or 52-38 cranks with
11-27
> > stock and 11-28 custom made cassettes. The rumors were of triples but
in
> > the end none materialized.
>
> We were told that many/most teams equipped their bikes with triples for the climb up the
> Angliru during last year's Vuelta. It makes sense for a 24% cow path with asphalt on it, even
> for a pro rider.

For mere mortals, sustained 7% gradients need the use of lower gears than what you get on most
road bikes.

I doubt that I can sustain even 200W non stop for an hour.

 

[Rick Warner]

"MGS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> Shimano still only offers 12-27 in Dura-Ace.

I guess that Ultegra 12-27 cassette I put on my SO's bike a couple of years back is a figment of my
imagination.

> I've used the 13-29 rear cluster up continuous hill climbs and 16% grades.

Good for you. Some of us do sustanined 14% with 20%+ grade sections. Good to have the option of
dropping lower if needed.

> And I'm 50 years old.

And some of us are older.

Again, with the diff between double and triple just a fraction of the cost of the new bike, why NOT
a triple? Why pay about the same for less bike with a double? I see no logic here, just the "I am
more macho" mentality.

- rick warner

 

[Rick Warner]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> That's all well & good, but which looks more impressive to people seeing you climb? Those
> itty-bitty-gear-grinders just don't look like they're working half as hard as those who are
> grunting it out standing. It's all about image, man, get with the program!!!
>

The last time I grunted on a hill climb, the rider in front of me (JB) turned around, and in his
germanic accent admonished me with "no grunting!" Sit and spin time ;-)

 

[Ajames54]

On Sat, 10 May 2003 19:09:47 -0400 (EDT), [email protected] (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

>As Ryan put it, I'm a "never was" (actually, a "never wanted to be").
>
>However, I do like hilly terrain,and lacking the muscles of Marco Pantani I need that itty bitty
>ring that only a triple can give me to hold cadence up the hills.
>
>If you have the strength and or ride on terrain that doesn't require the lower gears, stick with
>you double. it's lighter and simpler. "If it works, don't f*** with it".

I do admit I get a kick out of the discussion.... One half screams "sacrilege" about putting a
triple on a road bike... while the other side thinks it is the only way to get a lower gear than the
42 - 23 combo their bike came with...

I've only occasionally lamented the 39-26 I have with my hill wheels ... A triple should probably
not be the first choice but it is a legit choice.

 

[Rick Warner]

"Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

>
> Not that I recommend it for everyone, but I ride a 52/42 x 13-23 in Northern Illinois and I have
> low enough gears. If I need lower I still have the option of either running the rear up to 29 or
> dropping the front a bit with my 110bcd crank. I have ridden some tough hills and mountains and,
> I'll admit, 42x23 is challenging.

There are a lot of areas more challenging, with longer and steeper hills, than N. Illinois. I know
people in this area who, in the course of commuting, will do 100-150 miles and 12-15K feet of
climbing in a week. Lost of roads with 7-8%, 9-11%, and a few with sustained sections of 14-15% with
significant 18-20% portions. The more lower gears, the better for a lot of folks.

This time of year in this area you even see a lot of the triples converted to lower gears as folks
slap on MTB derailleurs and 12-32 or 11-34 cassettes as they prepare for the Death Ride (aka Tour of
the California Alps), the Everest Challenge, and the Climb to Kaiser, all long rides with a lot of
sustained climbing. Look to see those derailleurs and cassettes on EBay at the end of July

- rick warner

 

[Doug Taylor]

[email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote:

> I see no logic here, just the "I am more macho" mentality.

In the club I ride with, you lose macho/status points if your wife's bike has a triple.

I caught **** this weekend when I showed up with my 12-27 cassette on a metric century ride in the
hills. A 25 will pass if you are over 50 or injured.

You must ride with a bunch of wimps with no concern for appearances. Probably have hairy legs,
fenders, big guts, wool jerseys, quill stems and down tube shifters as well.

I speet on you and your concern for logic and proportion. You can't ride with us. ;-) --dt

 

[Peter Headland]

> That's all well & good, but which looks more impressive to people seeing you climb? Those
> itty-bitty-gear-grinders just don't look like they're working half as hard as those who are
> grunting it out standing. It's all about image, man, get with the program!!!

Standing at the top of Old La Honda (about 1,300' in about 3.5 miles, with some noticeably steep
pitches) on Saturday afternoon, I watched four riders with doubles finishing the climb. All were up
out of the saddle visibly struggling to turn the pedals over. When they stopped, one of them was
complaining how much his back was hurting. So far as "image" goes, I merely thought they were fools
not to have triples, since they obviously didn't have the physical ability to ride the gears they
were using in comfort.

 

[Grenouil]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Could somebody here please explain to me why almost every
cyclist these days
> wants a triple crank? On club rides almost everybody has
them. Even
> fast-paced rides I'm seeing more and more Ultegra, Campy
Chorus, and
> Dura-Ace(!) triples (w/12-21 cassetts). What's up with
that? Are we all
> getting old or something? Maybe that's it. I'm 42 years
old, by the way.
>
> My 32lb. commuter bike (rack, fenders, the works) has a
triple and I never
> use that little chainring unless I'm going almost
vertical. I think a double
> crank with maybe a 13-28 cassette makes more sense, in my
opinion.
>
> What do you all think?
>
>

Mmmm - I thought REAL men rode 53T single chainrings with 13-19 straight block cassettes............

 

[ØYvind RøTvold]

<[email protected]> writes:

> Could somebody here please explain to me why almost every cyclist these days wants a triple crank?
> On club rides almost everybody has them. Even fast-paced rides I'm seeing more and more Ultegra,
> Campy Chorus, and Dura-Ace(!) triples (w/12-21 cassetts). What's up with that? Are we all getting
> old or something? Maybe that's it. I'm 42 years old, by the way.
>
> My 32lb. commuter bike (rack, fenders, the works) has a triple and I never use that little
> chainring unless I'm going almost vertical. I think a double crank with maybe a 13-28 cassette
> makes more sense, in my opinion.
>
> What do you all think?

I don't think that you need a triple, you obviously don't think that you need a triple, why do you
care what I think?

--
__o | Øyvind Røtvold, proud owner of three triples _`\(, | http://www.darkside.no/olr/index.html
(_)/(_) | ... biciclare necesse est ...

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, Doug Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote:

> In the club I ride with, you lose macho/status points if your wife's bike has a triple.
>
> I caught **** this weekend when I showed up with my 12-27 cassette on a metric century ride in the
> hills. A 25 will pass if you are over 50 or injured.
>
> You must ride with a bunch of wimps with no concern for appearances. Probably have hairy legs,
> fenders, big guts, wool jerseys, quill stems and down tube shifters as well.

Ryan's 3-step program for getting respect even with funny equipment:

Step 1: put on a 13-26 cassette or a triple Step 2: go to the weekly crit Step 3: kick
everyone's ass.

Still working on step 3,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Steven Scharf]

"Peter Headland" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Standing at the top of Old La Honda (about 1,300' in about 3.5 miles, with some noticeably steep
> pitches) on Saturday afternoon, I watched four riders with doubles finishing the climb. All were
> up out of the saddle visibly struggling to turn the pedals over. When they stopped, one of them
> was complaining how much his back was hurting. So far as "image" goes, I merely thought they were
> fools not to have triples, since they obviously didn't have the physical ability to ride the gears
> they were using in comfort.

I used to get upset when people would show up for rides that I led for the bike club, with their
brand new bicycle that the local shop had sold them, without a triple. They could not ride up some
of the hills in my area (Old La Honda, Tunitas Creek, Balboa (Point Reyes)). They would end up
spending at $150-200 for a triple crankset, new front and rear derailleurs, and sometimes a new
spindle, for what would have cost them about $25 more had they bought a triple crankset equipped
bike to begin with. You can now buy a whole half-decent bike for what an upgrade to a triple
crankset costs!

I'm glad that the trend now is to have triples as standard equipment. on road bikes. Even supposedly
flat areas have this need. Ever try to climb Mount Dora in Florida with just a double?

 

[Rick Warner]

Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> You must ride with a bunch of wimps with no concern for appearances. Probably have hairy legs,

At least those with Y chromosomes do ;-) Those without a Y chromosome all have shaved legs.

> fenders, big guts, wool jerseys,

No, no, and no.

> quill stems

On some bikes.

> and down tube shifters as well.

Nope, though there are some barcons. Do those count?



- rick warner

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Standing at the top of Old La Honda (about 1,300' in about 3.5 miles, with some noticeably steep
> pitches) on Saturday afternoon, I watched four riders with doubles finishing the climb. All were
> up out of the saddle visibly struggling to turn the pedals over. When they stopped, one of them
> was complaining how much his back was hurting. So far as "image" goes, I merely thought they were
> fools not to have triples, since they obviously didn't have the physical ability to ride the gears
> they were using in comfort.

Peter: First off, I was joking... as you know, I sell mostly triple-equipped bikes, and have not, to
the best of my knowledge, ever talked someone out of buying a triple. But as far as back pain goes,
in my own case I would be making back pain worse, not better, if I were to force myself to stay in
the saddle on a long climb. Standing up from time to time allows me to stretch out.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Peter Headland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > That's all well & good, but which looks more impressive to people seeing
you
> > climb? Those itty-bitty-gear-grinders just don't look like they're
working
> > half as hard as those who are grunting it out standing. It's all about image, man, get with the
> > program!!!
>
> Standing at the top of Old La Honda (about 1,300' in about 3.5 miles, with some noticeably steep
> pitches) on Saturday afternoon, I watched four riders with doubles finishing the climb. All were
> up out of the saddle visibly struggling to turn the pedals over. When they stopped, one of them
> was complaining how much his back was hurting. So far as "image" goes, I merely thought they were
> fools not to have triples, since they obviously didn't have the physical ability to ride the gears
> they were using in comfort.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 12 May 2003 08:01:31 -0700, [email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote:

>Again, with the diff between double and triple just a fraction of the cost of the new bike, why NOT
>a triple?

The only reason is that the front derailleur is never as sharp across a triple as a double. The
other reason is a mental one for many riders. They seem to be obsessed with not using the small ring
and will struggle in a 42/23 in order to be able to say that they never used the granny. It happens
all the time. Those people now extol the virtue of a 53/39/30 triple.

If you have a triple and a 11/32 cassette, you can do almost all your riding and never use the big
ring or granny.

I used to be a triple fan but found that for the few times/yr. that I really needed the triple,
that a large cog in the rear worked fine. I recently discovered 110 bolt doubles and cannot see why
the vast majority of roadies would not want a 48/34. When the going gets tough I put on a Shimano
12/27, a 9sp custom 12/28 Campy 9 and I now have invented a flawless 10sp 12/28 Campy. My shifters
are all Ergo. The
34/28 is like a 30/25 or 39/32. For most riding I put on a 12/23 or
34/1.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 12 May 2003 13:23:08 -0700, [email protected] (Peter Headland) wrote:

>I merely thought they were fools not to have triples, since they obviously didn't have the physical
>ability to ride the gears they were using in comfort.

It's not about comfort. Hard riding in the mountains is about suffering. A competitor in the
mountains may rightfully say that if they need the triple they aren't strong enough to win. Many
riders believe that if you aren't suffering, you are logging junk miles.