you people out there riding double or tripple?

[lokstah]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
People buy compact cranks because they need a triple but won't admit it to themselves...

On the other hand, we all slap on our bikes what we're comfortable with. Here's a confession:

I've got an 11/22 cassette on my Giant, but a 12/27 on my Klein's DA10. Ok, what I really wanted was a 12/25 (not in stock at the time), but the point is that I figured I'd get what would suit me best given my style and the bike's usage. I can still get plenty of speeding churning out of the 12 cog, and since the Klein is purely a pleasure/show-off rig, I saw nothing wrong with using a 25 or 27 to make the hills more fun.

And Scott, you know all about those Bay Area hills. Pulling myself up South Park Dr. in Tilden is manly and rewarding on my Giant, but it's also fun to do it a bit faster, and with a touch less sweat, on the blue dream machine.

 

[DiabloScott]

Here's another confession. I've only gone DOWN South Park Drive. But only because that puts me in the right direction to do Pig Farm the hard way... in my 27t of course.

Sorry to all you non Bay Area lot for the insider talk.

 

[lokstah]

Originally posted by Randybaker99
BTW, what is a "compact crankset"?

A crankset format that FSA started pushing last year, sporting a 50/34 set of rings on a (I believe) tighter spider. Some of the pros busted them out for major climbing stages, but they've got the attention of enthusiasts looking for double-drivetrains more skewed towards climbing gear ratios. A touch sexier than a triple, for my money, though I'm sticking with my 53/39 for now...

FSA's gear ratio PDF here.

 

[lokstah]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
Sorry to all you non Bay Area lot for the insider talk.

Nah, screw them.

Here's another confession. I may go up S. Park every now and then, but it tends to make me jiggle, weave, and ultimately, it takes me near to tears.

 

[dhk]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
I'll put on a triple when I'm so old/weak/fat that I can't ride without one - and not one second earlier. Rear shifts with a triple suck; front shifts with a triple suck AND the chain rubs in most of the gears.

OK, "suck" may be too extreme - substitue "lack crispness" and re-read.

There may be valid reasons you don't need a triple for your riding, but poor shifting isn't one of them. Not sure where you dug this up, but it's "hooey" of the highest order.

I've got a DA 9sp with FSA Team Triple crank on my new bike, and the shifting is great....quick and crisp, even when I'm out of the saddle. The chain doesn't rub in the middle cogs at all, and if I get rub in the extreme cogs, a quick trim in or out is all it takes.
It certainly shifts better than my old Ultegra double.

The triple FD did take a bit more fiddling to get set up right, since the cable tension and alignment is more critical on the triple. Once it's set, chainring shifts are quick and positive both ways.

 

[Randybaker99]

Originally posted by dhk

I've got a DA 9sp with FSA Team Triple crank on my new bike, and the shifting is great....quick and crisp, even when I'm out of the saddle. The chain doesn't rub in the middle cogs at all, and if I get rub in the extreme cogs, a quick trim in or out is all it takes.
It certainly shifts better than my old Ultegra double.

I agree I have an Ultegra triple and it has silky smooth shifting. Identical to the DA double that I test rode.

The triple FD did take a bit more fiddling to get set up right, since the cable tension and alignment is more critical on the triple. Once it's set, chainring shifts are quick and positive both ways.

I had almost no fiddling on mine. I have turned the barrel adjusters 1/2 turn each, so far that is the extent of adjustments needed.

I have mentioned this earlier, and I am still standing by the theory that a 52/42/30 triple crank paired with an 11/21 racing cassette is superior to a 53/39 double with 12/25. I know this is heresy to some but look at the gearing tables and you will see that not only is the triple's range greater at both ends (37.5 - 124.2 gear inches, versus 41.0 - 116.1 GIs with the double) but the gaps are much more filled in with the triple. I have noticed that the difference between the cogs that are only one tooth apart (say 12 and 13) represent about 5 RPM of cadence (in the 90-100 range), so very precise shifting is a real possibility.

 

[dhk]

Originally posted by Randybaker99
I agree I have an Ultegra triple and it has silky smooth shifting. Identical to the DA double that I test rode.



I had almost no fiddling on mine. I have turned the barrel adjusters 1/2 turn each, so far that is the extent of adjustments needed.

I have mentioned this earlier, and I am still standing by the theory that a 52/42/30 triple crank paired with an 11/21 racing cassette is superior to a 53/39 double with 12/25. I know this is heresy to some but look at the gearing tables and you will see that not only is the triple's range greater at both ends (37.5 - 124.2 gear inches, versus 41.0 - 116.1 GIs with the double) but the gaps are much more filled in with the triple. I have noticed that the difference between the cogs that are only one tooth apart (say 12 and 13) represent about 5 RPM of cadence (in the 90-100 range), so very precise shifting is a real possibility.

My bike doesn't have barrel adjusters, but after one FD and one RD tension adjust at 600 miles, all has been fine here too.

Agree the triple fills in the gaps better than a double or compact setup. It's great to have a wide range of climbing gears with the inner ring rather than just banging down into the big cog on a double and grunting it out.

I went with the 12-25 paired with 53/39/30 FSA Team Triple. Guess it depends on the low gear you need for where you ride, but the 21 wouldn't quite do it for me.

 

[lokstah]

Regarding precision in triples versus doubles -- I suppose I can concede that a well-tuned triple front der can shift as crisply as a double. At the very least, though, double fans appreciate the minimal ability to screw up while you're riding.

Not that shifting through three gears is rocket science -- it's just that a double is quite elegant. Either you've shifted up into the big guy, or you've shifted down into the little guy. Throw the lever, and bam, you're there; worry about trim if you're picky.

 

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by froteur
double - soon to be compact double

What's the difference? Newbie here....

 

[Mart]

I used to use a triple, I think it made me a bit lazy on big climbs. Now I use a double and with the extra effort I've used over the last few months without the third ring, I think I'm getting stronger. I'm sticking with double.

 

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by Mart
I used to use a triple, I think it made me a bit lazy on big climbs. Now I use a double and with the extra effort I've used over the last few months without the third ring, I think I'm getting stronger. I'm sticking with double.

To me, a triple is like a double to normal folk.

I'm just waiting for Shimano to make a quintuple....

 

[drewjc]

Reiterating Lokstah on this one.....a "compact" crankset is one with (usually) a smaller diameter spider, and (always) smaller chainrings for the sake of lower gearing and lighter weight mainly aimed at the climbing market and the weight weenies. Also i think that a 50x11 is a big enough gear (it is bigger than 53x12) for almost any purpose except maybe desents at over 90km/h and i think that a 34x23/25 should be almost small enough for everybody as the gears u guys are using on the triples are not much different to this. I have to admit i am a racer/racer wannabe and feel that i would be ridiculed for using a triple (and i dont need one as i never have to go that low on the climbs around here anyway) but i also think that if you are going to the trouble of changing cranks etc. to gain the extra chainring then maybe it is worth exploring the "compact" option.

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by drewjc
Reiterating Lokstah on this one.....a "compact" crankset is one with (usually) a smaller diameter spider, and (always) smaller chainrings for the sake of lower gearing and lighter weight mainly aimed at the climbing market and the weight weenies. Also i think that a 50x11 is a big enough gear (it is bigger than 53x12) for almost any purpose except maybe desents at over 90km/h and i think that a 34x23/25 should be almost small enough for everybody as the gears u guys are using on the triples are not much different to this. I have to admit i am a racer/racer wannabe and feel that i would be ridiculed for using a triple (and i dont need one as i never have to go that low on the climbs around here anyway) but i also think that if you are going to the trouble of changing cranks etc. to gain the extra chainring then maybe it is worth exploring the "compact" option.

i rode my bike today set up with a triple for the first time since winter and man triples are awesome. with 52,42,30 up front and a 12-23 cassette theres always the perfect gear.

 

[Aernout]

Guys,

What if someone with a triple arrives faster at the top of a mountain than another guy riding a double ?
Do you think he is an inferior rider ?

 

[lokstah]

Originally posted by Aernout
Guys,

What if someone with a triple arrives faster at the top of a mountain than another guy riding a double ?
Do you think he is an inferior rider ?

Nope. You?

 

[drewjc]

No defintely not inferior, infact probably better (if not smarter)! In most cases though a hill taken at speed will be faster on a double as it forces u to ride a slightly larger gear and thus the speed must be higher (as long as u can keep the gear moving). I am saying that the hills (not really mountains) around here are too short or flat, so a triple would have to be spun at a ridiculous cadence at the speeds these hills are generally ridden up that it is not worth the extra hassle/weight etc..... Im not arguing just making spirited conversation!

 

[dhk]

Originally posted by drewjc
No defintely not inferior, infact probably better (if not smarter)! In most cases though a hill taken at speed will be faster on a double as it forces u to ride a slightly larger gear and thus the speed must be higher (as long as u can keep the gear moving). I am saying that the hills (not really mountains) around here are too short or flat, so a triple would have to be spun at a ridiculous cadence at the speeds these hills are generally ridden up that it is not worth the extra hassle/weight etc..... Im not arguing just making spirited conversation!

Agree with you 100%. You don't use the inner ring for rollers or sprinters hills that you can get over at 10-12 mph or higher.....just put in some muscle power, or jump out of the saddle and sprint up. Having the triple doesn't mean you use it as an excuse to slow down and loaf up every hill.

I use the inner ring for the long climbs, say 6-10% grades than go for a mile or more. It allows me to control the cadence and HR on these long climbs, so I can avoid blowing up and stay strong for the end of the ride. In my double, I had to just stand and grind it out at max HR....it was often a life-or-death struggle to keep turning over the pedals when the hairpins or walls kicked up to 22%.

If you don't have these kinds of grades, or have enough sustained aerobic power-to-weight capability to race up every mountain at 10-12 mph like the pro's, then you certainly don't need a triple.

 

[pablo_gg]

Originally posted by drewjc
No defintely not inferior, infact probably better (if not smarter)! In most cases though a hill taken at speed will be faster on a double as it forces u to ride a slightly larger gear and thus the speed must be higher (as long as u can keep the gear moving). I am saying that the hills (not really mountains) around here are too short or flat, so a triple would have to be spun at a ridiculous cadence at the speeds these hills are generally ridden up that it is not worth the extra hassle/weight etc..... Im not arguing just making spirited conversation!

I recently converted to campy triple (30x42x53) a couple of months ago after riding campy double (39x53) for many years. I am finding that I can cruise at a higher speed up rolling hills using the 42 than I could with the 39. Shifting between the 53 and 42 is much smoother since the jump in gears is not as dramatic as 39. Also, since I use this bike to commute to work as well, I find that it is much more enjoyable to climb the 1.5 mile hill to my work on days I do not want to push hard.

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by Aernout
Guys,

What if someone with a triple arrives faster at the top of a mountain than another guy riding a double ?
Do you think he is an inferior rider ?

I'd say the guy with the double is in denial and he needs a triple too. If that were me getting beat by a guy with a triple I'd drop major bucks on a compact crank on my way home.

The other option I see frequently recommended is to go XT/XTR derailleur and a 32t big cog. That's a cheaper choice than a new crank for those in triple-denial.

Just more triple-trolling. How come you triple guys are so defensive?

 

[belfast-biker]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
How come you triple guys are so defensive?

Coz double guys are so offensive?