Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Tripple vs Double chainring.

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Tripple vs Double chainring.

Old 06-04-19, 11:16 PM
  #26  
Teamprovicycle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Providence
Posts: 723

Bikes: Specialized tarmac sl2 giant tcx zero

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by 79pmooney View Post
True, My 9-speed triple running a 12, 14-19, 21, 23 X 53, 42, 28 is a total waste. Having all the gears I could ever want for climbing with never a gap bigger that 2 teeth in back is so pointless.

(I'm one who loved being strong enough to ride most of New England's hills on a 42 X 13-19 5-speed n my racing days. I still love those gears. Even more when I can have those missing 16 and 18 cogs. Now adding a 21 and 23, yeah!! And to reflect that I am 40 years older, being able to have all those cogs uphill, another "yeah!!")

I am now setting up another "waste" bike to ride serious gravel. It is an old steel bike that I am not willing to stretch to 130 dropout spacing so I am going to run a 50-38-24 X 13-28 7-speed. So far , so good. Of course thehuge drawback of my setup is that it is so cheap. 110 BCD rings for old Sugino cranks are a dime a dozen. (I had all on hand since I have been riding the 110-74 standard so long.) Picked up a new Sachs FW from a parts box for $12. Excellent shifting with (gasp!) SunTour Power Ratchet DT shifters.

Oh, this "waste" 3 X 7 has 17 different use-able gear combos. 1 X 17s cost how much? and will be available when?

Ben
if you think you need a triple then you haven't taken the time to match your gears to the terrain , and have set your bike up wrong .
1x would be all you need if there wasn't an efficiency penalty ,
you can get the same performance with a double as any triple ,
shifting jumps mean nothing,
you shift and pedal and its done in less than a second ..
if you are just riding and doing adventure stuff , you don't need the smoothest shifting , where you don't feel a click .
even if you are racing you are pedaling so fast you will never notice it ,

its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
Teamprovicycle is online now  
Old 06-05-19, 07:00 AM
  #27  
Phil_gretz
Journeyman Bike Commuter
 
Phil_gretz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,033

Bikes: '71 Jeunet 630, '79 Peugeot PXN10LE, '83 Fuji America, '88 Fuji Saratoga, '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '16 Motobecane Gran Premio Elite, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Liked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by xroadcharlie View Post
...I would just like to know why since the derailer and shifter are already there.
1) unnecessary weight
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end

Do you need more reasons?

BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.

If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
Phil_gretz is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 07:15 AM
  #28  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,411
Mentioned: 163 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8616 Post(s)
Liked 353 Times in 227 Posts
Tour with a triple. 9 speed. Wouldn't have it any other way. I don't like giant steps between gears. Nothing worse to me than climbing some mountain pass and having to choose between spinning too fast or mashing more than I should have to. Not racing, so I don't care if the shifting is (allegedly) "clumsy."
indyfabz is offline  
Likes For indyfabz:
Old 06-05-19, 09:47 AM
  #29  
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 41,650

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6836 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 215 Times in 179 Posts
typically you use the middle of the triple a lot.. big ring offers a few gears higher , smallest a few gears lower

the outer ones overlap in gear ratio ranges with the middle ..
fietsbob is offline  
Likes For fietsbob:
Old 06-05-19, 10:44 AM
  #30  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,288

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 102 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Teamprovicycle View Post
if you think you need a triple then you haven't taken the time to match your gears to the terrain , and have set your bike up wrong .
So do you carry all the stuff to “match your gears to the terrain” if the terrain changes? Your method is okay if all you ever ride is on roads that you’ve been on before or if you ride laps around the same course all the time. I range far and wide on roads that I’ve never been on before. It’s very hard to “match...gears to the terrain” if I’m riding over 1500 miles of terrain. The gears I needed for Ohio, southern Michigan and southern Ontario are very different from the gears I needed western to southeastern New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

By the way I do carry the stuff necessary to “match [my] gears to the terrrain”. It’s called a triple crank.

1x would be all you need if there wasn't an efficiency penalty ,
you can get the same performance with a double as any triple ,
Really? Show me a double that has the same performance as this gearing. That’s a 15 inch gear to 120 inch gear (ignore the 9 tooth cog). “Performance” isn’t just how fast you can go. Performance may also mean that you can climb up those stupid little hills that are common anywhere from Maine to Oklahoma along the Appalachian mountain range while carrying all you need to exist for 3 to 5 weeks or more at a time.

And, yes, I have used that entire range multiple times on multiple tours. Pedaling at 4 mph beats the Hell out of walking up a hill at 4 mph.

shifting jumps mean nothing,
Until it does. I’m convinced that doubles, especially compact doubles, were designed by people who have no idea what gearing is. They look at the range and call it good. They even use the range as a selling point without telling the buyer that the shifting sucks.

I could make a double out of my system but it would be completely useless. It would be two single speeds with little to nothing in common with each other. I could run through the gears on the 20 from a 15” gear to a 40” gear and then I’d have to shift all the way back down to the lowest gear and then shift over to the high range. Yeah, that’s convenient and efficient.

you shift and pedal and its done in less than a second ..
if you are just riding and doing adventure stuff , you don't need the smoothest shifting , where you don't feel a click .
How much off-road riding have you done? How much “just riding” have you done? Whatever I’m riding...whether mountain bike trails or bikepacking or commuting or touring or “just riding”...I want (and have) the smoothest shifting I can get. I definitely feel a click when I shift. I also don’t what to be fiddling with hunting and pecking by shifting the front and then shifting the rear to find the right gear. When I shift from the outer ring to the middle ring, the shift isn’t a large jump and my cadence doesn’t change that much like it would with a “normal” compact double, never mind and extreme one as detailed above.

its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
99.9% of riders aren’t worried about “the highest levels of cycling”. We are worried about riding our bikes with our very own legs. We aren’t worried about “legit” titles (as compared to what, illegitimate titles?). I’m not paid to ride a bike nor to win titles. I...and most other people...ride bikes because we like to ride bikes. Triples might not work for those “legit” titles but they work far better for us mere mortals.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.

Last edited by cyccommute; 06-05-19 at 10:55 AM.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 10:52 AM
  #31  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,288

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 102 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil_gretz View Post
1) unnecessary weight
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end

Do you need more reasons?

BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.

If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
In answer to your cons:
  1. The weight is only “unnecessary” if you don’t need it. If you need it, it’s worth carrying.
  2. I’ve never had a triple that was “clumsy” while shifting. I have 8 bikes with triples on all of them from mountain bikes to touring bikes to fast road bikes. All of them shift crisply in all gears.
  3. Maybe the chainline is exaggerated but as you say it is only slightly and cause no issues that I can see.
  4. The low end gearing is the point. Look at the system I posted above. Should I choose between having a high gear or a low gear? Should I coast down every hill I run across or walk every hill I come across? When covering 1500 miles over the course of 5 weeks, that either a lot of coasting or a lot of walking. I don’t particularly like either.
I’ve had many, many, many triples over my life. I’ve like them all and, at some point, used the gears they have provided...usually multiple times per ride.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Likes For cyccommute:
Old 06-05-19, 12:00 PM
  #32  
Phil_gretz
Journeyman Bike Commuter
 
Phil_gretz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,033

Bikes: '71 Jeunet 630, '79 Peugeot PXN10LE, '83 Fuji America, '88 Fuji Saratoga, '13 Motobecane Fantom29 HT, '16 Motobecane Turino Pro Disc, '16 Motobecane Gran Premio Elite, '18 Velobuild VB-R-022

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Liked 77 Times in 51 Posts
^ @cyccommute , I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I know that you're passionate about riding all sorts of bikes. You're also a stalwart contributor to BF discussions. But I think that your response has gone off track from the OP somewhat. He just wanted to know "why" and comes at this from a comfort/hybrid road perspective (2018 Giant Sedona). He doesn't tour, and he doesn't ride off road. I've done both, so get where you're coming from.

I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.

For touring, I get it. I also appreciate the convenience of having a 0.75 or below gear for late in the day, loaded, and climbing. And you need the big ring for downhills and tailwindy days.

But for the majority of the recreational riding and all of the competitive riding, a triple doesn't make sense. You can get useful gear ranges for any skill level with the proper selection of double chainrings and the correct range of cogs.

I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort. The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.

Finally, any weight you don't need is just...weight. I was commuting on my fast road bike yesterday morning, and some fellow passed me going uphill on a somewhat extended 7 degree incline. So, reacting, I began to apply power. I wasn't catching him and was astonished that I couldn't. Shocked. Minutes later, I arrived at work and took off my backpack, which I'd stuffed with food, lunch, laptop and other sundry items. 25 pounds, give or take. A headslap moment...right there.
Phil_gretz is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 12:07 PM
  #33  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 7,532

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1323 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 16 Posts
Why not have a triple. What does say a 28 tooth granny gear weigh. And---------------maybe at the end of a long day a detour forces your very tired body to climb a very steep hill to get home. You will happy you have that granny.
rydabent is offline  
Likes For rydabent:
Old 06-05-19, 12:13 PM
  #34  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,896

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 60 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Teamprovicycle View Post
...

its pointless to try and stick up for old worthless tech , when doubles are proven on the highest levels of cycling to be the better choice , let me know if anyone wins a legit title with a triple set up they found in the bottom of the parts box at recycle a bike , give me a break !!!!
How many of those "legit title" winners are 66 years old? If they held those races for a field of 2/3s of a century old riders instead of roughly 1/3 or less, that parts bin stuff might well be seen on winning bikes. (And with high enough prize money and advertising, the big three parts manufacturers would be back in the triple business!)
79pmooney is online now  
Likes For 79pmooney:
Old 06-05-19, 12:34 PM
  #35  
xroadcharlie
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Windsor Ontario, Canada
Posts: 95

Bikes: 2018 Giant Sedona

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 12 Posts
When I looked for a bike last year, I wasn't looking for a specific gear set. I narrowed it down to Giant's Sedona 3 x 7 speed with 1.95" tires and their very handsome Cyprus 1 x 7 speed with 1.5" tires. Both have the upright seating position I am interested in for pleasure and comfort.

If the Cyprus 7 speed cassette's sprockets were properly spaced I would have bought it instead of the Sedona. I love the simple styling of the Cypress with a single chainring and no front derailleur. The 42/34 to 42/14 range is enough for 90% of my riding. BUT the Cyprus uses a 14/34 cassette with 2 low cogs of 24/34. So to keep reasonable steps between gears I can only use the 14 - 24 sprockets on the cassette. That is unacceptable even for a recreational riders.
xroadcharlie is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 12:46 PM
  #36  
Bill in VA
Senior Member
 
Bill in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 240

Bikes: Current: 2016 Bianchi Volpe; 1973 Peugeot UO-8. Past: 1974 Fuji with custom black Imron paint by Stinsman Racing of PA.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by fietsbob View Post
typically you use the middle of the triple a lot.. big ring offers a few gears higher , smallest a few gears lower

the outer ones overlap in gear ratio ranges with the middle ..
I have ridden doubles with 5 speed freewheels in the following order (52/40 with 14-28; 52/48 with 14-23; 52/42 with 14-24 and 14-28), and now a triple 50/39/30 with 12-30 10 speed cassette. The quote above mirrors my experiences.

From the first bike to the current bike, I also notice it matches well with my age,weight and conditioning in that the high gears are very similar, but the lows are way lower. I could easily move back to a double front since my highest and lowest 2 speeds are so rarely used, but with the real lows, when they are needed they are nice.

The current bike is a Shimano Tiagra 4600 series triple STI setup that has proven to be extremely reliable and trouble free front and rear.

Last edited by Bill in VA; 06-05-19 at 12:57 PM.
Bill in VA is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 01:11 PM
  #37  
SJM205
Senior Member
 
SJM205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CT
Posts: 106

Bikes: Cannondale CAAD12, CAAD4, Trek 820

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I thought I loved my CAAD4 triple (52-42-30F 12-25R) until I got on my CAAD12 with 52-36 / 11-32. Two fewer gears, but higher high and lower low, so you know, you'd never know.
SJM205 is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 01:34 PM
  #38  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,288

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 102 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil_gretz View Post
^ @cyccommute , I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I know that you're passionate about riding all sorts of bikes. You're also a stalwart contributor to BF discussions. But I think that your response has gone off track from the OP somewhat. He just wanted to know "why" and comes at this from a comfort/hybrid road perspective (2018 Giant Sedona). He doesn't tour, and he doesn't ride off road. I've done both, so get where you're coming from.

I, too, have had many triples, but am coming to the conclusion that they're really not necessary in most cases. I ride with a friend who is quite an accomplished cross country MTB-er, very technically sound and aggressive. He says that the XC MTB scene has (past tense) moved away from triples to doubles, and now is settling on wider range singles even. This may not apply to really mountainous riding. I just don't know. But those would be the extreme cases anyway.
The problem I see with mountain bikes is that they are being set up and marketed for rather short rides or for multiple laps on a know course. For example, I recently overheard a conversation where someone was talking about how tired he was after his “long” mountain of 12 miles. I suppose that’s long for some people but my mountain bike rides can be from 12 to 25 to 160 miles. That’s ranging over a lot of territory and involves a lot of varied terrain.

A single speed is fine if you know the area where you are riding but if you don’t know what is ahead, it’s hard to plan your gearing beforehand. The biggest failing of 1x in my opinion is that you can pick a good low or a good high but not both. If you don’t pick right, your ride can be seriously impacted.

With a triple, I can have a good low, a good high and a good middle. I read an article by one of the SRAM engineers where he said that with a single you could change the front chainwheels and completely change the character of the bike. I fully agree. Having the gears on the bike and a mechanism change between them is just a convenient way of “completely changing the character of the bike”.

But for the majority of the recreational riding and all of the competitive riding, a triple doesn't make sense. You can get useful gear ranges for any skill level with the proper selection of double chainrings and the correct range of cogs.
I believe the opposite. You can’t get a correct range of gearing on a double. You can get a high gear range or a low gear range but you can’t have both. For most recreational riders, bikes are already geared too high but most people look negatively on low gears as being “weak”...hence the name “granny gear”. Personally, I revel in having a stupid high gear and a stupid low gear.

I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort. The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
Typically, when people say that triple are “clumsy” they mean that they shift poorly as in slow. I’ve never found that to be a problem. I don’t see the middle ring as being uncrisp either.

I don’t use compact doubles (I’ve had some doubles in the past) but I find the gearing to have huge holes in the shifts between the chain rings. If you downshift off the large ring at 90 rpm, the pattern requires an increase in rpms to over 120 to maintain the same speed or it requires downshifting on the back 2 gears or more to get something that is only slightly off of the original gear ratio so that you can maintain the same rpm. Triples don’t require that kind of fiddling.

Finally, any weight you don't need is just...weight. I was commuting on my fast road bike yesterday morning, and some fellow passed me going uphill on a somewhat extended 7 degree incline. So, reacting, I began to apply power. I wasn't catching him and was astonished that I couldn't. Shocked. Minutes later, I arrived at work and took off my backpack, which I'd stuffed with food, lunch, laptop and other sundry items. 25 pounds, give or take. A headslap moment...right there.
I have a wide range of bikes with a wide range of weights (none over 30 lbs however). Going from a double to a triple is not going to save me much weight. My bikes would lose about 100 grams if I removed the inner ring. That’s not going to make much difference.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Likes For cyccommute:
Old 06-05-19, 02:10 PM
  #39  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,733
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1192 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil_gretz View Post
I'm surprised that there has been pushback on my assertion that triple front/rear shifting is clumsy. There is more overlap, so finding the "next" adjacent gear takes more mental effort.
Because the front jumps are typically smaller on a triple, finding the intended "next" gear usually requires much less compensatory double-shifting. Sometimes, when I want a big shift, I'll even just shift the front and make no rear compensation at all; I basically never do this with a compact double, because the shift is far larger than I ever want to make in one go.

The middle position is rarely as crisp as a limit shift, and there are three center trim positions. I've shifted with STIs, bar ends, triggers and grips, and I don't find the triple shifting as sure or silent as with the best STIs with a double. It's really not even close.
I guess I just can't relate. All of my modern cranks that use compatible derailleurs and shifters enjoy fluid and consistent shifting. The only real differences are where they "catch" in the stroke (due to pin/ramp scheme) and the size of the gaps. So, the triples generally shift snappier because the gaps are smaller.

Most of my triples are on friction shifters, where trim isn't a problem. My indexed triple doesn't have trim positions at all, but even this setup is surprisingly non-bothersome... it doesn't really rub in the middle ring, and the only places it rubs in the other rings are at the cross-chained extremes which I tend to avoid anyway.
HTupolev is online now  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 06-05-19, 02:22 PM
  #40  
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 41,650

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6836 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 215 Times in 179 Posts
My 6 by 3 toured Europe several times ...
fietsbob is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 02:46 PM
  #41  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,733
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1192 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
The real reason is called "Q factor". That is how far spread apart your feet are.
That's one of the reasons, but also a somewhat annoying one since Q-factor on modern cranks is usually wider than it needs to be. Modern road triples usually have a Q of about 160mm, but most road frames could play just fine with 150mm. One of my bikes uses an asymmetric spindle to achieve a Q-factor of 142mm with a triple crankset.
HTupolev is online now  
Old 06-05-19, 03:01 PM
  #42  
Kapusta
Cyclochondriac
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,161
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 906 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Originally Posted by Teamprovicycle View Post
if you think you need a triple then you haven't taken the time to match your gears to the terrain , and have set your bike up wrong .
So, setting up your gearing for a wide variety of terrain is setting it up wrong?

I guess the “right” way to do it is to keep a few sets of chainrings swap them out depending on the terrain? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 06-05-19, 10:18 PM
  #43  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,896

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 60 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
The real reason is called "Q factor". That is how far spread apart your feet are.

Mtb bikes with triple chainrings have like 170mm Q-factor or something like that

Road bikes with double chainrings have like 140mm Q-factor or something like that.


Doubles' lower Q-factor equal more efficient bio mechanical.

Mtb bikers use Triple because they're willing to sacrifize efficiency for more gears.

Double vs Triple is a compromise. Pick your weapon wisely.
A lot of the large Q-factor is driven by the manufacturers, not the triple as a concept. Triples are around 3mm wider on the drive side. Space the crank out 3 more mm and that is done. Now bikes have gotten wider to allow for wider tires and thicker chainstays which pushes the crankset out. Also the major manufacturer likes to make its bottom brackets symmetrical which is completely unnecessary. That same manufacturer likes to ensure there is far more crank to bike clearance than necessary. The old Sugino cranksets were quite asymmetrical. Left crank didn't miss narrow steel chainstays by much. Right crank didn't miss the chain in the big chainring-small cog by a lot. Triple Q-factors were not large.

If the manufacturers decided to address Q-factor as something important, a lot could be done. (There is a manufacturer of bottom brackets that allows you to spec the exact spindle length and asymmetry you want. (You can even tweak the asymmetry quite a lot.) Phil Wood. Not cheap, but compared to aftermarket knees ... )

Ben
79pmooney is online now  
Old 06-05-19, 10:35 PM
  #44  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,288

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 102 Times in 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta View Post
So, setting up your gearing for a wide variety of terrain is setting it up wrong?

I guess the “right” way to do it is to keep a few sets of chainrings swap them out depending on the terrain? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And cassettes. Don’t forget cassettes. Maybe 2 or 3 or 5 would be enough to cover every possible type of terrain you might run across. Think of all the weight you’ll save And all the time when you change the gears at the bottom of the hill and then at the top. I’m sure the peleton will wait for you.
__________________
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 12:37 AM
  #45  
Bill in VA
Senior Member
 
Bill in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 240

Bikes: Current: 2016 Bianchi Volpe; 1973 Peugeot UO-8. Past: 1974 Fuji with custom black Imron paint by Stinsman Racing of PA.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney View Post
A lot of the large Q-factor is driven by the manufacturers, not the triple as a concept. Triples are around 3mm wider on the drive side. Space the crank out 3 more mm and that is done. Now bikes have gotten wider to allow for wider tires and thicker chainstays which pushes the crankset out. Also the major manufacturer likes to make its bottom brackets symmetrical which is completely unnecessary. That same manufacturer likes to ensure there is far more crank to bike clearance than necessary. The old Sugino cranksets were quite asymmetrical. Left crank didn't miss narrow steel chainstays by much. Right crank didn't miss the chain in the big chainring-small cog by a lot. Triple Q-factors were not large.

If the manufacturers decided to address Q-factor as something important, a lot could be done. (There is a manufacturer of bottom brackets that allows you to spec the exact spindle length and asymmetry you want. (You can even tweak the asymmetry quite a lot.) Phil Wood. Not cheap, but compared to aftermarket knees ... )

Ben
I find most of the modern bikes I have looked at no longer have the indented chain stays that used to be commonly seen. You would have an indentation on the inside of both stays for the tires, and the outside of the chain stay for the full size chainwheel. That was pre-compact cranks and with 120-126mm rear hubs. With the thin frame tubes and the doubles, the FD did not have that far to travel even with older chaines.. Many older bikes were fitted with 28 and 32mm tires from the manufacturers. Some chainstays on higher level bikes were round oval round to avoid the indents and maintain stiffness, although as hubs got wider I did see a few with indents or flats for the chainring.

Now I see chainstays that are curved and thicker to provide more tire clearance, yet keep a narrow BB. The seat tubes are fatter so the FD is also has to more and with triples it can be a lot of movement and cable travel. I figure a lot of this is due to the differing properties of light alloy, carbon fibe, and chrome-moly tubes.

I have not noticed any major differences moving from a double full size crank and 120mm rear hub to a triple crank and 130mm rear 10 speed cassette as far as feet or knees. I was familar with chain lines, but not Q-factors. Now I am curious and I will have to measure the distance between the outside of the cranks where the pedal shaft attaches.

Last edited by Bill in VA; 06-06-19 at 12:40 AM.
Bill in VA is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 03:18 PM
  #46  
MikeyMK
Cycleway town
 
MikeyMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Milton Keynes, England
Posts: 1,069

Bikes: 2.6kw GT LTS e-tandem, 250w Voodoo, 250w solar recumbent trike, 3-speed shopper, Merlin ol/skl mtb, 80cc Ellswick

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 47 Times in 40 Posts
Having a single on the front, and a derailleur on the rear, invariably gives me issues with the chain coming off. Even with a clutched derailleur (which are pretty good, if my XT one is any worthwhile experience.

And I could cope with a single up front. As long as my rear cassette is an 8-60t.

In fact, I'd want at least 10-50t with a double up front (34/54t with that).
MikeyMK is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 03:24 PM
  #47  
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 41,650

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6836 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 215 Times in 179 Posts
with a hub combining a 3 speed internal and a cassette your large cog in low gear is 3/4 of its actual gear size

and high is 4/3 bigger..
fietsbob is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 03:45 PM
  #48  
MikeyMK
Cycleway town
 
MikeyMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Milton Keynes, England
Posts: 1,069

Bikes: 2.6kw GT LTS e-tandem, 250w Voodoo, 250w solar recumbent trike, 3-speed shopper, Merlin ol/skl mtb, 80cc Ellswick

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 47 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by xroadcharlie View Post
I like a single chainring for it's simplicity and appearance...
Simplicity perhaps, if your set-up prevents the chain from coming off. But I'm not so sure about appearance.
Designs vary greatly, but I find more rings quite invariably look better.

The triple on my Merlin..



The single on my Ellswick..

MikeyMK is offline  
Likes For MikeyMK:
Old 06-06-19, 03:52 PM
  #49  
Ogsarg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hollister, CA (not the surf town)
Posts: 620

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Roubaix, early 90's Giant Iguana

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked 39 Times in 24 Posts
I have a 9 speed triple and I use the small chainring on some of the steeper hills in the area. I've wondered if a compact double would be OK but it was pointed out to me that with the larger rear cogs that come with many of the compact doubles, you can get the same low end gearing without going to the very small ring. For me, if I can get a range that is good enough for the terrain I'm riding, I'm fine with the double. A 50/34 with 11/34 cassette should work for my needs.
Ogsarg is offline  
Old 06-06-19, 05:21 PM
  #50  
Slightspeed
Senior Member
 
Slightspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,559

Bikes: 1961 Legnano Gran Premio, 1964 Legnano Roma Olympiade, 1973 Raleigh Super Course, 1978 Raleigh Super Course, 1978 Peugeot PR10, 2002 Specialized Allez, 2007 Specialized Roubaix, 2013 Culprit Croz Blade

Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 50 Posts
I have both doubles and triples on vintage bikes. I'm pretty lazy about shifting, and feel that the triple is more flexible without compromising gear loads. I like the Sugino cranks, with an AT triple 32/40/50 matched to a 34t Megarange 6 speed freewheel. I built this bike for Eroica where there is unusual terrain, dirt and gravel combined with paved sections. I also built a Peugeot PR10 with a Sugino GT compact double 34/52 mated to a 28t 6 speed freewheel. It was a nice ride, but the gear drop from 52 to 34 on the front, a little extreme. It worked pretty well, though, with more chain wrap than the old Simplex RD was happy with. I have since replaced the Sugino GT double with a French Stronglight 52/40 double.

My latest build mated a Sakae SR double, 52/42 to a Megarange 34t 6 speed, and is the nicest ride of them all. Don't be afraid to experiment. None of these vintage set ups are very hard to find, or that costly to experiment and have fun with. Go for it. I use low cost, but great performing, Suntour VGT Luxe rear derailleurs on the 34t Megarange, and they work fine with Suntour bar end shifters.

I went into so much detail, because as a rookie builder on my '73 Super Course first build, I spent lots of time lurking on this forum, before I tried putting the pieces together. It all went amazing well, with bikes that were a great joy to build and ride.

'73 Super Course with Sugino AT triple and 34t Megarange 6 speed.

Sugino GT compact double with 28t 6 speed, Peugeot PR10.

'78 Super Course with Sakae SR 52/42 double with 34t Megarange.

Stronglight 52/40 double with 28t 6 speed on same PR10 (maybe a little too much chain).

Last edited by Slightspeed; 06-06-19 at 05:29 PM.
Slightspeed is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.