you people out there riding double or tripple?

What? What do you mean?

 

I ride a double, my wife has a tripple 105. You know what, I have tripple envy. You should see her spin up a killer slope. Nothing GRANNY about it.

 

I want to endorse what El Ingles says : nothing wrong with having a triple : cycling is about enjoyment first and foremost.
And if a person needs the triple to get through their route, it's their business.
Our sport is open to all - I've been there, done that in cycling terms, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with triples as far as
I am concerned.
If it means people taking up the sport and, more importantly,
letting them train and get fitter with the minimum amount of stress, I'm all for it !

 

If I'm reading your post correctly, triples are OK for beginners or people who need to get fitter. I don't think that's much of an endorsement for triples. The point to me is that a triple on a road bike reveals nothing about the rider's capability.

 

I agree with your view - having a triple on your setup is no reflection on the ability of a cyclist.
I agree with this view.
Only there are people in our sport that pour scorn on the fact that
a cyclist would have a triple on their machine.
This sort of snobbery causes people to feel inhibited and to stop
taking part.
I dislike this snobbery and my posts here hopefully reflect this view.
I've heard disparaging views being expressed by, in particular,
older cyclists (blokes in the late 40's onwards) who bleat on about
the fact that we should be all cycling 53x9's all the time.
Horse****e of the highest order.
I raced against this old wankers in their day and beat them :
yet I don't feel the need to disparage younger cyclists because they use triples.
If it keeps people interested in the sport and keeps them fit,
it's a good thing.

 

Just received my first road bike, a triple ... and currently looking to feel it in action on the road next summer.

Tried my gears on the rollers yesterday ( the day I had it!) and there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the first and the second chainrings, but I'm sure I'll find it useful!

 

I'm just getting used to my first triple here. The hill back up to my house is about a 15% grade for a 200 ft elevation gain. On my old bike, I just stuck it in the lowest gear, 39/26, and either sat back and ground up at 3-4 mph, or stood and climbed at 6-10 mph on days when I wasn't trying to stay below LT. No options.

With the triple and a 12-25 cogset, I've now got three ratios lower than the 39/26....feels like a whole set of climbing gears. Today I used 30/21 going up the hill, which is a bit lower than my old lowest gear. Out of the saddle was no faster, still only 6-7 mph, but just felt easier...didn't have to pull the bars to keep ticking over.

I like the idea of having a couple of low gears in reserve for those long rides in the mountains; will be a lot more useful to me than the 53/13 or 53/12.

 

I use a double because I find triples mechanically more problematic, and, I suppose more importantly, I don't quite need one yet. Which isn't to say that I won't someday... and isn't to say that I don't hurt rolling up and down some of the Bay Area's steeper climbs.

I'm just not at the stage where the extra trim positions and FD sweep feel worth the trouble. Again, yet.

Regarding the old fun versus competetiveness discussion, I'd like to once again offer my favorite point: in the grand scale of things, almost no cyclists are in the sport for financial gain. A preciously tiny percentage of racers hold contracts with fully professional, money-paying teams. The hard-core local guy who races a $4000 sponsorship-supported bike for his top area team will rarely make enough off competition to buy a pack of energy gels, even if he's a five-time regional champ.

In other words, even he's doing to for fun. Competetive, fitness-oriented fun, just like pee-wee football, surfing, skiing, and company softball. Some of us may take it more seriously, which is fine... let's all just remember the bottom line. I'm not Tyler, you're not Tyler; none of us are Tyler. Cycling is his only real paycheck.

Whether we ride Schwinns or Merlins, we're hobbyists.

 

How rude! Come to Colorado and ride the front range with your double...if you are man enough. Seriously, I am a Grandpa and still ride the "Triple Bypass" with my Triple and the flats and rolling hills with my double. Nice to have both. It greatly extends my range for riding the hills that I love to do at my advanced age.

 

Right on Grandpa!

 

I currently ride a double 52-42 x 14-28 - and it's a 5-speed cassette. I bought the bike in the days when that seemed like a lot and I find it still gives me enough gears for most occasions.

After reading this thread, I'm definitely going for a triple on my next bike with a smaller range on the cassette - I reckon something like 50-40-28 x 12-21 should give me the kind of range I require, with a bigger top gear than I currently have and a smaller bottom gear. I think I need it - I'm not in great shape, my knees are dodgy and racing hard is not a concern. But I do like climbing.

 

I'm using triple as there're plenty of hills here, Ultegra 52 - 42 - 30, rear 11 - 23t. Well I'm not a racer just like to ride and enjoy the scenery .

 

I have a triple with a 12-25 cassette and don't care what you think. My knees are still in good shape and I get to do some stunning climbs even with my fat 230 lbs backside.

 

I am glad to see a lot of common sense coming from this discussion. This is my 50th year riding european racing bikes. I have written that I have a triple and a double and enjoy both. When ever I see any impuning the macho factor in a triple I just have to think about the good old days when we had 10 spds and the lowest gear you could have was a 42 by 21, now that is manly in the mountains...and we all rode 'em with great enjoyment on the steepest of California hills including the infamous Tuna Cyn Rd which is the steepest and longest hill I have ever ridden. However, technology has made great improvements in frame materials, gearing, Ergo/STI levers, and the triple (Yeah I know they have been around for a long time, but...). Just enjoy the technology! Oh, yeah didn't a guy from a some pro team use a triple last season and kick some serious butt in the mts... The world always has had poseurs and today ain't any different.

 

Road Bike #1: Dura-Ace double (9-Speed)

Road Bike #2: Ritchey double (New Dura-Ace double in the box)

Mountain Bike #1: Shimano LX triple

Mountain Bike #2: Shimano XT triple

Didn't even know they made doubles for mountain bikes. I knew they made singles for downhill specific bikes.

That's why I'm here. I learn something new every day.

 

Road Bike: 53/39 with 13/26

Mtn Bike: 50/38/26 with 12/28 (slick tires)

Mtn Bike: 50/38/26 with 13/30 (knobbies)

If I'm going to be trying some serious climbing I just ride my mountain bike with the slick tires. Maybe if I had three road bikes I would build one with a triple.

 

Dave I've got 50-40-28 x 12-21 and it is a great setup.
I hate climbing (well only since I gave up cycling seriously and tried to come back after 15 years !) but this setup makes life a lot easier for people like me who are just back in to the sport.

 

If you like ALWAYS having the PERFECT gear, climb, downhill, whatever, get a triple and a corncob cassette. The triple takes more attention, but I'll trade having to tune the FD for always having the perfect gear in mixed terrain.

 

Dura-Ace double on my tri-bike, Ultegra double on my cyclocross and a Tiagra Triple on my trekking bike.

I've chosen double because I never used that litthe chainweel.