cyccommute 

Let’s avoid those loaded words like “stupid” and “weak” and “beginner”, shall we?

You said That’s gear hunting by definition. I make a shift from the outer ring to the middle ring and it’s the only shift I make and the only one I have to make. Redoing the cassette on the gear calculator give this chart, the double still has a hole that the closer ratio triple doesn’t have. By your own admission (see above), you upshift twice when you change from the outer chainring to the inner. If you are riding along in the 48/25 gear at 14mph, dropping from to the 32 tooth chainring drops you to 9 mph and you upshift to get to 12 mph. It makes little sense from a hill climbing perspective as you’ll probably be downshifting soon on a 12% grade which will probably put you back to the 25 tooth gear in short order.

The main point of the triple is to give a wider range with more selection. You could consider a triple to be a close range double with a low gear. Look at the 50/40/30 crank in the example above. The speed in the 50/25 gear is about the same as your crank at the same RPM. Shifting from the outer ring to the 40 tooth ring drops the speed to 11 mph. That’s not enough of a speed change to require a shift on the rear. Thus you aren’t going back over the same shifts as you progress up the hill.

This is not my first rodeo. I see and feel hills. If you wait until you “feel excessive resistance”, the hill is going to make you struggle. Once your cadence drops, it’s difficult to regain it through shifting. Better to see a huge hill...12% isn’t all that common in northern Colorado or anywhere in Colorado for that matter...and start preparing for it rather than waiting until you are in the middle to think about how to attack it.

masi61

No one mentioned chain line yet as another strength of triples. I have found that my chain stays happy, longer if I keep the lateral chain deflection to a minimum. I suppose I am not availing myself to all the available ratios but that is OK. I almost consider that I am running a “crossover” triple where I am OK with having 2 to 4 rear cogs to be avoided in each of the 3 chainring combos.

Notso_fastLane

I'm going to experiment with replacing my triple with a Patterson Metropolis drive. This gives almost the exact same gear range, but when shifting to 'Speed' mode, it will require downshifting 4-5 gears on the cog. I think in the long run, once I get used to it, I'll have a better drivetrain and smoother shifting.

I have a smaller granny gear on standby if the Patterson doesn't work out though. (This is on a ~70 lb velomobile.)

indyfabz

That sort of view can be depressing.

A few years ago I was getting close to the top of a long, sun-baked climb of a mostly deserted road. I was unfamiliar with the climb but thought I was close. A rare car passed me. A little while after it did I made the mistake of looking up at where I thought the summit was. Car was still going up.

cyccommute 

I objected to your assumption that triples are for

Those are very loaded words. How do you like being called “weak” or needing “training wheels”? Bike Forums has had this discussion before and they usually devolve into insult-fests with the 2x and 1x hurling insults very much like your...umm...”insights”. Those of us who have used triples for a long time do it because we see the value in them. It’s not because we are “weak” or “new” or “stupid”. Just read my posts above and you can see that I’ve put a lot of thought into the topic.

Frankly, I would have been fine with this comment without the previous loaded comments. I’m not saying that a double isn’t right for you but I’m also not questioning your abilities when I point out the drawbacks of 1x and 2x systems. I’m questioning the design and use of those systems for most people.

livedarklions

Question I have from yesterday's ride--which gear set-up will prevent a headwind from kicking up and slamming me to a stop just after I start a 10%+ grade climb?

Gotta say, these "you're doing it wrong" threads are pretty worthless. I have no problem believing that two equally "strong" riders going up the exact same hill might find that what works better for one is worse for the other rider. Legs and cardiovascular systems are not standard issue, and we all have riding styles adapted to our own strengths and weaknesses.

I do find it funny that some of the double advocates are accusing triple users of being "weak" then complaining triples are too heavy. If you're that much stronger, you shouldn't mind the little bit of weight, right?

cyccommute 

What’s even worse is that the road goes way down into a hole before that climb. It’s Sky Line Drive from Mena, Arkansas to Queen Wilhelmina State Park (about 11 miles). It goes up and down on a ridge that runs to the northwest of Mena. The real depressing part is that there is a road about 2 miles north of the Sky Line Drive that is relatively flat with a short climb that isn’t even that steep to the state park. Only after I got to the park, continued on to Oklahoma and came back around to Mena did I find out about that road.

Kapusta

I do appreciate the chain-line benefits, but I usually refrain from bringing it up because it makes some peoples’ heads explode.

Kapusta

I had no more issues dropping a chain on the old 105 triple as I do on the new 105 double. I can’t say it never happens, but it is very rare and just means I need to adjust something.

As far as ring wear... hard to say, as rings wear a long time in my experience. I always replaced the small and middle together so they must have worn about the same. I ride a lot in the mountains, so the small ring still got plenty of use, and in my experience, small rings wear faster, anyway. Big rings last almost indefinitely for me.

indyfabz

I thought that might be from your trip in Arkansas, etc.

BCDrums

You weren't asking me, but I'll reply. I have replaced two or more middle rings in 30 years on this bike. Buy a nice TA ring and it will last a long time. I have replaced the big ring a few times, but for different sizes rather than wear. I have the original granny, 24T.

I haven't found that it's one or the other. My setup shifts perfectly, and is silent. I always roll my eyes when someone says triples are difficult to adjust. Not a big deal, even for double users.

As for quietness, if you have rubbing among the chain, deraillers and rings, your setup is not optimized. I found that using a Shimano chain with Shimano cassettes and deraillers was quieter than a SRAM chain, and much quieter (and worked better) than a KMC chain.

This is a technique issue. I don't find it hard to go between big ring and the middle.
And amazingly, I am able to keep my pants out of the drivetrain! We triple-users are wicked smaht. Wish everyone was!

Phil_gretz

^ this 100%, especially the bolded section. I did the same, although I think that my two lower rings are 22-34. Triples are fine, especially for loaded touring. Otherwise, probably not necessary. Choosing the right chain ring combination for a double has to be done with some thought. Why accept the manufacturer's standard? Who says? A 46-34T double can do most things, as can a 46-30T.

Modern gearing is way to high to be practical for most of us. Who really needs 130 gear inches? For racing down hill? For my fitness and abilities, anything much over 106 gear inches is wasted. Anything below 35 gear inches or so is also useless, unless I'm on a loaded tourer and climbing a mountain, which I have done and been glad for the lowest available gearing.

cyccommute 

I guess it depends on what kind of riding, terrain and distance. I ride my mountain bikes to work a lot and I spend a lot of time...even on the off-road sections...in the high range. I also use at least one of my mountain bikes for off-road touring which involves higher speed travel than single track most of the time. Most every off-road tour I’ve done here in Colorado involved lots of miles of downhill as well as lots of miles of uphill. I rode from Colorado Springs to Cripple Creek and back (after a side trip to Cañon City) and it took about 10 hours up and about 2 hours back. The way back has quite a few places where I was flying along at upwards of 35 to 40mph. It’s nice to have the gears to do that kind of speed rather than coasting which probably.

Additionally, I’m an old mountain biker and I have the habit of shifting into the large ring on most any downhill to avoid chain slap and possible chain suck. I do the same on any bike I’m riding down a hill. Newer derailers have tighter springs but I only have a few bikes with newer derailers.

I’d agree that perhaps 130 gear inches is too high for many applications. However, I have used it from time to time and enjoy having it. A 110” to 120” gear is more useful.

I’ll disagree with you on a 35 inch gear bing “useless”. It depends on where you are and what kind of terrain you have to deal with. Not many of the “flat” places are earth are all that “flat”. Kansas has some kickass hills. North Dakota has some mean little hills. The eastern US has small hills but they make up for altitude by having a chihuahua like attitude. The meanest, hardest to climb hills I’ve encountered have be any where from the Mississippi east. Colorado has hills that go on for miles and climb to some pretty high altitudes but steep hills and snow don’t mix all that well so roads tend to meander to maintain a 5 to 7% grade. People designing roads in Colorado took a look at the topography (and some of the snow levels) and said “I ain’t goin’ up that thing!” and took a left turn. Vermont hills...to pick one example...tend to go straight up through the trees. They can’t see the topography so they ignore it.

HTupolev

Relying on a gearing limit to serve as a training control seems silly to me, like configuring a trainer to apply extra resistance at random regardless of what you're trying to accomplish with a portion of a training session. If you want to get strong, ride hard. If you're riding hard intentionally, having lower gearing available isn't particularly tempting. If you want to build leg strength, do strength training. If you're not trying to ride hard, what's the issue with going easy?

And if you're not intentionally training, to what degree does any of this matter anyway?

Not exactly a clear-cut difference, really. Everyone is different, and everyone's roads are different, especially when you start throwing unpaved roads into the mix. My gravel bike is fit like a road bike and sees mostly paved miles, and I've a fairly high top-end on it and closely-spaced gears for road cruising speeds; it's also got a 24-32 low-end, because roads like this exist in the foothills:



And even if we only look at more "normal" road stuff, there's are huge differences in required pedaling torque between a pancake, an area with a lot of 5% hills, and an area with a lot of 10% hills.

Biketiger

I am not a fan of the triple. It made sense on my Woodrup touring bike but not so much on my Independent Fabrication roadbike where I mostly used the big ring anyway. I changed it out to a double (not a compact) and never looked back. Less is more for me - so I mostly ride my fixed gear bikes.

theDirtyLemon

. . . there's no way this thread should be four pages long.
​​
​​

tomato coupe

It usually takes 5-6 pages before someone posts the perfect gearing setup that works for everyone in all situations.

theDirtyLemon

Sorry everybody! Get to work, we need that Golden Ratio, the future of cycling depends on you!

av1

I am waiting and staring for it.

masi61

i don’t have any rubbing of the chain. My triple is adjusted correctly. It is probably true that I should be using a Shimano rather that off brand chain. Right Now I am using a Taya 9 speed chain and I like it. The only issue and I believe is the likely cause of occasionally dropping the chain might be a slight mismatch of the worn chainrings and the Taya chain which is waxed.

For the above reason your your remark about dropped shifts between the big and middle ring may not be a technique issue but a slight mis-match.

boomerbicyclist

jlaw, what the heck is that thing? I've never seen anything like it in front.

boomerbicyclist

I'd love to have triples on all my bikes--even my Superissimo. But then, as of this writing I'm a week and a half away from 64, so.... But I've always liked triples.

Camilo

Hmmm. Without re-reading the entire thread, i don't think we disagree on anything. I think you mistakenly thought I was referring to a post you made because my post was under yours. I was not. I had commented earlier int he thread and it landed at the end of the thread which happened to be just below yours. At least I think this is what happened.

Annnnnyyyyywaaaayyyy....I'm totally in favor of triples for people who want or need them and don't think they're stupid or need to htfu. I think low gear users are as fit and tough as they want to be, whatever that is.

I should have used some sort of emoji because I was being sarcastically critical of the people who implied that stupid people used those set ups and that people who used low gears needed to htfu. (the htfu is a common theme of those who disagree with using low gears... especially people who have no concept of the reasons most of us ride). Obviously you don't agree with those people either.

People should use whatever gears they want or need. People who want or need triples or any other gearing option are not stupid or soft. Nobody should htfu unless they that's the purpose of their riding. Me? I like low gears, but i only ride for enjoyment and general fitness. But I ride a lot and have for several decades. Compared to most people my age (66), I'm plenty tough. Not as tough as many, but tougher and fitter than most in my age group.

jlaw

It's a fake - a joke that Jan Heine at the Rene Herse website cooked up. But it does look pretty realistic.

adlai

Yuppers.

And to think, there are doubles with 22 speeds and triples with 21 speeds.

The triple is also annoyingly more difficult to adjust the FD for.