Triples - What's The Big Deal?

[Top Sirloin]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 00:20:28 GMT, "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup
"@thankyou.com> wrote:

>Top Sirloin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 10 May 2003 20:20:39 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >What do you all think?
>>
>> Your fitness rises to the level of your lowest gear.
>>
>
>Because there is no fitness involved at spinning a hill in the granny at 110-120 RPM.

There is, but it's easily acheived. My new bike, in my return to riding, came with a 11-21 in the
back, which was too high for my low level of fitness - every large hill was a lactic acid inducing
near puke-fest. I put on a 12-25, and it's was still hard, but seven months later I rarely touch my
23, even on the decent hills we have around here, and can spin my 21 pretty damn fast uphill.

I'm not a small boy. I'm 6' 1" 240lb wannabe powerlifter trying to lean out.

I've just noticed that my friends/family who have triples never seem to get any faster uphill - at
the first hint of discomfort it's into the small ring and spin away. This is excellent for
recreational riding, but some of my best ride memories are when I manage to pop over a hill at the
end of a ride turning my 21 at 100-120rpm despite the pain.

I'm not trying to fan the flames of the holy war, but I think a lot of triple riders are selling
themselves short.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo

 

[Top Sirloin]

On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:49:49 GMT, [email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:

>In article <8Dewa.31056$eJ2.28884@fed1read07>, Mike S. <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>>
>>I've noticed that in myself too. When I have a 39x21 I get up and over the hills on my rides
>>almost as well as when I have a 39x23. When I add a 25t, I just end up going a little slower at
>>the same level of effort.
>>
>>I'm fairly sure that everyone will find the same thing, but their abilities may not be up to the
>>level of riding a 39x25 (...or 23t, or 21t) all the time.
>
>I think this is often but not necessarily true - it is possible to train yourself to spin the ****
>out of a small gear and consequently go uphill fast. Similarly you can train yourself to push a big
>gear on the hills or do entire climbs standing up. I have been running lower gears in the last
>couple years than previously, I find if you are able to defeat laziness (ie, discipline yourself to
>work hard at any cadence) then you will get faster, if not, then lower gears will only result in
>doing less work and you'll be slow. I ride a lot of moderately long hills (ie, 6-10% grades of
>10-15 miles) and I do basically all of it sitting down, and I use a 39-28 low gear (on a double)
>which works well for me, riding with other people who generally have a 39-24 or 39-25 that they
>spin slower.

Word. For me it's a just trick to keep myself from slacking.

>If the hills were shorter I might get by with a bigger small gear but I can't stand up for a 10
>mile climb or I'll just blow up.

For a 10 mile climb I might need a triple (or a 39-27), but here in the midwest a 2 mile hill is
rare, yet everyone hits their granny 100 yards up the hill.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo

 

[Johan]

Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:49:49 GMT, [email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:
>
> >In article <8Dewa.31056$eJ2.28884@fed1read07>, Mike S. <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
> >>
> >>I've noticed that in myself too. When I have a 39x21 I get up and over the hills on my rides
> >>almost as well as when I have a 39x23. When I add a 25t, I just end up going a little slower at
> >>the same level of effort.
> >>
> >>I'm fairly sure that everyone will find the same thing, but their abilities

> >>may not be up to the level of riding a 39x25 (...or 23t, or 21t) all the time.
> >
> >I think this is often but not necessarily true - it is possible to train yourself to spin the
> >**** out of a small gear and consequently go uphill fast. Similarly you can train yourself to
> >push a big gear on the hills or do entire climbs standing up. I have been

> >running lower gears in the last couple years than previously, I find if you are able to defeat
> >laziness (ie, discipline yourself to work hard at any cadence) then you will get faster, if not,
> >then lower gears will only result in doing less work and you'll be slow. I ride a lot of
> >moderately long hills (ie, 6-10% grades of 10-15 miles) and I do basically all of it sitting
> >down, and I use a 39-28 low gear (on a double) which works well for me, riding with other people
> >who generally have a 39-24 or 39-25 that they spin slower.
>
> Word. For me it's a just trick to keep myself from slacking.
>
> >If the hills were shorter I might get by with a bigger small gear but I can't stand up for a 10
> >mile climb or I'll just blow up.
>
> For a 10 mile climb I might need a triple (or a 39-27), but here in the midwest a 2 mile hill is
> rare, yet everyone hits their granny 100 yards up the hill.

 

[David Damerell]

remove the polite word to reply <[email protected]> wrote:
>Really a 110 bolt circle even for doubles would make more sense for almost all riders unless you
>live in one of the flat states.

In particular, with 110 BCD doubles we could avoid the admittedly small extra expense and weight of
triples without having to engage in machismo.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Gocycle]

Originally posted by TNEWSOME1
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 used a triple for the first time up a steep hill and ended up getting more power from the middle chainring as I am not a spinner. I was more fatigued from spinning than exerting power
up the hill.

 

[Raptor]

David Damerell wrote:
> You don't read the articles by the people who are always supposedly engaging in friendly sprints
> to city limits at 100mph and therefore need a 63x8 way more than anyone else, never mind that if
> they shift more than one tooth in back their knees will fall off?

Sheesh, a 63x8? I just spin my 54x12 at 228 RPM.

(No, I didn't bother to crunch the math.)

--
--
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

 

[Peter Headland]

> Because there is no fitness involved at spinning a hill in the granny at 110-120 RPM.

Reassure me - this was intended humorously, right? Or maybe you can explain how the laws of physics
got rewritten so that the work required to lift a certain weight a certain difference changes if you
spin faster?

 

[pgiroux]

Troll? Me? Well actually English is not my first language so I may have trouble expressing things
accurately.

I was trying to say that at some point along the way we have met a point of diminushing returns,
that each new product 'improvement' by manufacturers is more of an improvement (of bottom line) to
them than to us. At one point there is very little valid improvement to a design but it pushed on us
with the help of marketing and
pseudo-science.

Look at frame sizes now, small, medium, large. Look at threadless headsets. Look at 28 spoke wheels.

I may erroneneously saw the addition of triples as a further attempt from manufacturers to get the
bikes off the floor, never thinking of puttng a triple on my bike, or any road bike.

I stayed away from the 'bike scene' for a long time. Maybe it's a reality check for me.

On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:51:34 GMT, Mark Janeba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>> pgiroux@[megaweb.ca] wrote:
>>>Triples on road racing bikes. Ugh.
>>
>>>So I'm asking, when did road cycling bikes jumped the shark?
>>
>> This is probably a troll,

<snip

 

[Zeeman]

My two cents: When deciding between a double and a triple, I'd consider the terrain you'll be riding
on as well as the general health of your knees and strength of your legs (rather than your age). I'm
giving you this advice based on the assumption that triples generally offer you lower gearing (I'm
not as tech-savvy as some contributors to this group and am a non-competitive road enthusiast). You
are risking injury cranking hard at a low RPM to get up a hill in a higher gear. Unless you can
sustain the speed to get to the top, you're probably better off riding a triple with lower gearing.

I have a triple. I ride in the Portland, OR area on fairly mountainous terrain. Most of my training
rides involve 1-2,000 foot climbs on fairly steep grades. If I usually road the flatlands or
moderate terrain, I wouldn't bother with a triple. On more mellow terrain there are a lot of gears
on a triple I don't need.

I ride a Trek 2120 with Campy Chorus components.

<[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?

 

[Drew Saunders]

Lots of folks seem to think that a triple is automatically offers a wider gearing range and a lower
lowest gear than a double, and this is often part of the whole incentive behind double-ring
machismo. Ponder the following perfectly feasible setups:

Single 45t chainring, 11-34 cassette (Shimano makes this cassette)

Double 39-53 chainrings, 13-29 cassette (Campy offers just this setup)

Triple 30-40-50 chainring, 12-21 cassette (Campy offered their racing triple in 30-40-50 at first,
but may no longer do so, but its easy enough to set up on most triple cranks. Lots of folks make
12-21 cassettes).

The lowest low gear (34") is on the double, the higest high (112.5") is on the triple, although the
low and high gears on each setup are really close to each other. They all have very similar gearing
ranges (74.7" difference top to bottom for the single, 73.8" difference for the double, 73.9" for
the triple).

The triple setup, or something like it, works great with 8spd cassettes, as you'll get both a decent
range and small steps without having to go to 9 or 10 speed. I used to use a 29-40-50 w/ 12-21 8spd
and now use a 26 low, as the hills around here seem to be getting higher every year. It must be the
earthquakes...

My point being, that although it's easier to get a narrower range with a single or double and a
wider range with a triple, a triple chainring setup does not automatically mean super wide range and
old fogey puttering up the hill low gears. Current cassettes and chainrings can get you whatever you
want. If Campy (or Shimano, who's working on 10spd) made an 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28 10spd
cassette, that would work great with a 34-46 110bcd double, but what I have works and is paid for.

Drew

--
Drew W. Saunders

dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

Peter Headland wrote:
>
> > Because there is no fitness involved at spinning a hill in the granny at 110-120 RPM.
>
> Reassure me - this was intended humorously, right?

Of course. <G>

Barry

 

[Rick Warner]

Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> You're doing the same thing. Because you need a triple, now everyone should have one?

Are you a spin doctor in real life? I never said I needed one, rather that there were times I found
it helpful. I am *NOT* the one telling people to buy a less capable bike, you are; I am saying that
you naysayers should not get down on folks who want to maximize their purchase dollars and get a
bike with the widest range of usability.

> Does someone in Florida buying their first road bike really need to spend extra cash for something
> lower than a 39/27 when cycling is a expensive hobby in the first place?

What happens when the person in Florida takes the bike to Colorado, California, Oregon, Tuscany,
etc. on vacation and are faced with hills? That double with 11-21 may mean they are spending their
vacation on the stairmaster (walking the hills), or spending significant $$$ to upgrade the bike. If
they had a triple they may want to upgrade the cassette, but that is cheap. And on an initial
purchase the difference between double and triple is negligible; $20-30 around here. Since the
average road bike is going for more than $1000, that means the difference is a couple of percent of
the purchase price. It is a NOOP decision; get more bike for essentially the same price.

> After reading rec.tech for a while, it's appearing to me that's it not the double riders who are
> guilty of machismo, it's the triple riders who are constantly in a defensive mode against some
> unknown attacker of their manhood.

Not at all, there are just those of us who are tired of the machismo element trying to tell the
world that they are less macho if they do not follow the path dictated by the racing fringe. And it
is getting to be more of a racing fringe, as more and more racers opt for triples. The reports of
the NCAA finals talk of all the triples that appeared for the final race, which included a long hill
climb. Bottom line, if your fringe element wants to play 'Quien es mas macho' [you are probably too
young to understand the reference] then you are welcome to go play with yourselves; just leave the
rest of us to live in our world.

> Why haven't road bike _always_ had triples?

As others have pointed out, it required technological advances.

> If I had a triple, I'd be using it, because the middle ring is larger than the 39 on my
> double.

You can rectify that without a triple; there is a reason there are little bolts holding those rings
onto the cranks - they can come off and be replaced.

- rick warner

 

[Rick Warner]

Drew Saunders <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Lots of folks seem to think that a triple is automatically offers a wider gearing range and a
> lower lowest gear than a double, and this is often part of the whole incentive behind double-ring
> machismo. Ponder the following perfectly feasible setups:

Since you are at Stanford you should take a tour of the local shops (PAB, Mikes, Chain Reaction,
TBO) and look at the gearing on the bikes. The standard triple configuration in the area is 52-42-30
with a 12-25 cassette, different than your hypothetical example. Best to talk real world. In flatter
places the cassette is usually 12-23 or 11-23. These are the most common; the out of production
Campy triple crank and the uncommon cassette will be rare. With the commonly available triple in the
bay area you will find the range to be 34-117 gear inches. The most common double configuration sold
has a range of 40-115 gear inches.

- rick warner

 

[David Damerell]

Drew Saunders <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lots of folks seem to think that a triple is automatically offers a wider gearing range and a lower
>lowest gear than a double, and this is often part of the whole incentive behind double-ring
>machismo.

Well, that's not automatically the case, clearly - when I get around to picking up 110BCD cranks
I'll have a lower low than a lot of road triple setups - but at the same time it is the case that
triples tend to offer a lower low.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!