69chevy

I am asking because I've never owned one, and have never felt a need for one.

I keep my bike on the large ring (50) for 90% of my riding.

I know "cross chaining" is frowned upon by many, and If I am in a climb long enough, I will shift to my smaller ring.

If it's a short climb, I admit, I cross chain it.

I guess this bad habit comes from my first road bike (over 20 years ago) that would drop the chain if you shifted the crank under load (which is the only time I needed to).

That said, since a double seems way more than adequate for any scenario I have ever encountered, why do triples exist?

Is my lack of knowledge because I ride hills instead of super long inclines?

Is there a terrain where 30+ gears in necessary?

merlinextraligh

Ok, I'll bite.

Triples have traditionally been the best answer to cover a wide gear range, with close spacing in the steps between gears.

When bikes had 6 speed cassettes, a triple was a great answer to cover a wide range.

With the advent of more and more cogs on the back, compact cranksets with smaller rings, and 11 tooth rear cogs, the case for triples is becoming much more questionable.

With 6 cogs, and the smallest one being a 14, you just can't cover a range of say 122 gear inches to 32 gear inches, with a double crank, without huge gaps.

With 11 cogs, and a compact crank, no problem.

corrado33

Triples are necessary for certain things. If you're racing you probably won't have a triple. But if you're touring, or you're towing, or you live in a place with a very varied terrain, you'll enjoy having a triple. If you had a bike that you towed something uphill with, but also road alone, you couldn't have gears wide enough to accommodate both with a double. You can only drop so far from one chainring to another before bad things happen.

This seems counter intuitive, but I actually like the triple I have on my commuter much more than the double I have on my road bike. With the triple I switch between chainrings much more often and freely, with the compact double it requires a thought and effort because I have to triple shift the back and then downshift the front to end up roughly in the same gear. It's a bit jarring. Not saying that I'm not used to it, but chainring shifts are much more smooth on a triple.

roccobike

So you're a power rider and can leap hills in a single bound. Must be nice. I'm a spinner, I recover fast, and have no trouble on the flats but hills are not fun.
I had a triple on my Giant OCR-C and took it off when I upgraded to DA cause I wasn't using the third gear, went to a compact double. BUT, I wasn't doing rides with plenty of hills. Picked up the Tarmac and it came with a triple. I thought about replacing it, but left it on and I joined a new group for mid-week rides that only does rides with lots of hills. On long rides, over 50 miles, that can take it's toll. So I use the triple when I absolutely have to. It allows me to pass stronger riders struggling with a double on the same hill in the same pace line. On a recent charity ride, I passed several who where off the bikes walking the last hill or two, bet they would've liked to have a triple.
That said, most bikes have doubles and most strong riders don't need a triple. I'll keep mine for now.

bikemig 

While I agree that triples made more sense when there were fewer gears on the back, triples still make sense in some situations. Loaded touring is one situation. Also age matters (i.e., you may need lower gears once you get older) and that might dictate a choice. If you do a lot of climbing, a triple might still be a good choice. One "problem" with triples is that they are becoming increasingly difficult to mesh with modern gearing systems so it is just easier to go with a double.

Even when I was fit and racing, I liked a triple when riding grades of 20%. Another potential advantage of triples is that you don't have as much of a jump when going from the big to the small ring up front. I'm not totally in love with what a 16 tooth jump does in terms of your gearing; YMMV.

corrado33

Besides, is there any real disadvantage to having a triple? They barely weigh anything...

Really? How so? Cross chaining? That's always existed in some way, shape, or form.

TrojanHorse

OP, you clearly live in an area where you could survive on a fixed gear.

I have a compact double and swap out cassettes based on the terrain I'm going to be riding. My preferred cassette is a 12-28 because the cogs from 12-17 are single tooth increments. If I'm tackling some steep hills I put the 11-32 on there but now I have bigger gaps all over the place. A triple would give me the best of both worlds - no big gaps in the gears and the low-low gear for the occasional nasty road, and no need to swap cassettes either.

11 speed... it's getting ridiculous, the NDS spokes are getting nearly vertical. Not much tension in there.

79pmooney

I've been riding triples for decades, before and after my racing days of the latish '70s. My racing bike was a double 53-42 x 13-19 5-speed FW. I loved the gearing! But I was strong enough to get up almost everything in New England on that 42 x 19. After racing I had a custom made and geared it with the same gearing except added a 28t inner ring. Same sweet gearing only I could now climb anything as a non-racer. As I got older and moved out West where hills are considerably larger, I took advantage of the coming additional cogs and added to that same basic freewheel first a 21, then a 12, the went 9-speed 12-23 or 25 or 28. (I am now 62 had have had some injury issues and do occasionally use that 28-28.)

I ride mostly the middle ring, that 42. For me, flat ground riding at less than flat out on the 42 x 14, 15, 17, 19 is simply right. If I can get a 16 in there, better. And the 18, better still. The triple allows those gears to always be on the bike. Those ratios are always decent chainlines. So life is good. And it I do some serious climbing? Those same cogs in back work really well with the 28 in front. Plus climbing and not being in your lowest gear and having the next one up a small step is sweet. Road levels out a little and you shift up. Steepens? Go down. Each time you shift, you put a pace change in that the guy beside you with his lowest geat and a three tooth jump to his next cannot match. You wear his legs out . It's fun!

Now, I am still on 9-speed. A triple gains less with an 11-speed. And the 11-speed has a further advantage. Lighter weight. The bike by say 300 grams. The wallet by considerably more. (This if you start from scratch as a triple which basically costs the same as a double. It is just changing from one to the other that is expensive.)

All my non fix gear bikes are triples. I spent less than a year on a 50 something x 39 and hated it. Going to a bigger jump as a double always seemed like it would be worse still so compacts never interested me at all.

Ben

merlinextraligh

The number of riders who actually need a triple is getting smaller and smaller. 50/34 with an 11-28 gives a low enough gear for many riders to climb big mountains.

If you need a lower gear for lack of fitness, or touring carrying loads, you can go to an 11-34 in the back and still use standard road derailleurs, keep spacing reasonable, and have a one to one low gear.

If you need an ultra low gear, you can go to an 11-40. That setup has a lower low, and as high,high as a standard triple setup. The spacing is not terrible with an 11 speed cassette, and I'd wager shifts as well or better than most triples.

The applications where a triple is the best answer are getting pretty small in number, mostly just loaded alpine touring.

corrado33

One thing I really enjoy about my triple is that it puts me in the middle of my cassette when I'm cruising at my normal speed. I have plenty of room to go up and go down without cross chaining. If a double did that, it wouldn't have high or low enough gearing.

Now, half step gearing... that's another thing altogether.

Inpd

Hi,

For Beginners they are great. See my earlier thread https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...oads-bike.html and the reasons given inside.

69chevy

That's why I like this forum.

I hadn't thought about loaded riding, or pulling a trailer.

Yes, where I live is pretty flat. I recently did a ride where there was a 1000 ft climb over 18 miles which was a bit extreme for my area, but I still didn't long for a middle gear, or smaller chainring than my bike has.

69chevy

My double does that for me as well.

JerrySTL

A triple gives me a good granny gear when the grades get above 15%. However keeping the front derailleur trimmed is a PITA. My next road bike will most likely have a compact double with a wide cassette like a 12-32. With a compact double's 50-34 and a wide cassette, the 34-32 combo is even a little better for hills than the 30-27 granny gear on my triple. With 10 or 11-speed cassettes, I'm not really worried about the big jumps between gears. I grew up when a 10-speed meant 5 gears on the freewheel. Those were some jumps!

I have a 30-34 granny gear on my touring bike. Anyone need a tree stump pulled?

rms13

Its legacy thinking. Triple gives you a lot of gear overlap. Even the new SRAM 1x11 group can provide the same range as a triple

69chevy

I had also wondered why this option hasn't been the norm.

I may be an early adopter.

corrado33

If your double does that for you then you obviously don't have large downhills in your area (or simply don't care to go fast down them ). I spin out of my big ring on my double even though when I'm cruising I'm usually on the upper half of it (larger cogs.)

Also, with a double you run into THIS problem.

My bike came with a 50 tooth big ring. I spin out of it even on moderate downhills. Therefore I want a bigger big ring. BUT, when I'm cruising on flat ground, I'm usually in the 3rd or 4th biggest cog. If I get a bigger big ring, I'd be in the 2nd or 3rd, definitely cross chaining. There's no good "middle ground."

I LIKE having a triple. And that's the reason why I'll continue using them. (When I have a choice and didn't buy the bike on sale, like the aforementioned bike.)

Agent Cooper

As others have noted, it depends on where you ride. If you live someplace that's relatively flat, maybe you don't need or want a triple.

My area is rolling and hilly, so my triple comes in handy.

Darth Lefty 

On a mountain or touring bike, a triple will give you up to a 5.5:1 total gear range with stock cranksets, and wider is possible. With a well selected cassette they can do this with a nice double shift, that's wider in the granny range (1.25:1 per shift) and narrower in the upper range (1.15:1). You spend most of your time in the middle ring, with the big ring for descents and the small ring for bailout.

You probably don't need that range on a racing road bike. For an all-rounder, it's handy.

seypat

All of my bike have triples and either 5,6,7 or 8 speed rears so I can't speak for the compacts with 10 or 11 out back. But....... I think the triple allows you to cover a wide range, have close spacing, and most importantly, not have to ride the entire cassette all of the time. With the triple you have more choices in how you can combine the front and rings/cogs. You can also stay in the middle of the cassette, ride 3 or 4 cogs and shift the front as you need it. Or you can do as you would on a compact and ride up and down the cassette and not shift the front much. You also get to keep the standard double with 2 bigger than compact rings and only use the granny as a bailout. I was doing a tri 2 or 3 weeks ago. I was on a bike with a 52/42/30 triple and 12-28 7 speed. About 90% of the bike leg I was on the 52 and the 3 smallest cogs. Occasionally I would go to the middle and the same 3 rings and maybe a 4th. Then right before the 1/2 way turnaround there was a short steep hill about 500 yards long. The hill was steep enough that there was a lot of people walking their bikes up. I went to the 30 and the big cogs and spun right up it going past plenty of people. Then I turned around and went back to the 52 and the 12 cog. The rest of the ride was on the 52 and the 3 smallest cogs again. Not much crosschaining and just some shifts up or down on or 2 cogs at a time. Had that hill not been there I would have had a cassette on in the 12/13-23 range for some really close spacing. As for weight penalty, you do have a bigger BB and a third ring, but that is offset some by the bigger cogs with the compact. Now, I have heard that above 8 speeds triples don't shift very well, so that might be a reason for the compact.

Here is a something for another thread. When I was spinning up that hill past those walkers I wasn't going much faster than they were walking. When I got to the top, I had to take a breather for a few pedals while they were refreshed after their walk. I know pride is a big motivator, but walking that hill might not have been a bad strategy. They did not lose much time and were refreshed at the top of the hill.

69chevy

"If your double does that for you then you obviously don't have large downhills in your area (or simply don't care to go fast down them ). I spin out of my big ring on my double even though when I'm cruising I'm usually on the upper half of it (larger cogs.)"

I don't ride down big downhills 90% of the time, when I do, I am on 50/11.

merlinextraligh

you need to learn to spin. 50x11 at 110rpm is 40 mph. Above that, you're pretty much better off tucking and coasting.

AlmostTrick

When I had a triple I spent 99+% of my time in the middle ring. (42) Decided I didn't need the other rings and now ride a single.

This makes me better than triple or double riders!

corrado33

Yes, but I have a 12-30 cassette. 40 mph is 120 RPM. I regularly sit at 95-100 RPM. Being a runner that just feels natural to me.

corrado33

It obviously makes you better. In all honesty, I've come to the same conclusion as you have on my commuter. I'm moving to an internal geared setup soon with obviously a single chainring. On my road bike though, it wouldn't be good enough. I couldn't go fast enough with a medium sized chainring, and I couldn't climb the hills I climb with a medium sized chainring either.