linus

Q-factor is important to many people. I wouldn't ride anything wider than 150mm.

Curved crankarms are designed to clear chainstays and sensors for crankarms.

Tourist in MSN

I disagree, when I built up my Rohloff bike I did not want my Q factor on that bike to be significantly different than my derailleur bikes. Thus, I have a chain line that is intentionally off by about 5mm to give me a bottom bracket spindle 10mm shorter than I should have had for the ideal chain line. This results in a Q factor that is almost the same as my derailleur bikes.

fietsbob

Have specifics to offer?

Old straight crank arms is where the Low Q happens ,TA as a single ring,
can be set up to barely clear the chainstays..

I have trouser guard outer rings on my 2 Rohloff bikes.... I don't sweat Low Q...
1) 127.5mm BB M730 XT v cranks . 2) a 125 mm BB on the Cranks my Bike Friday Shipped with..

Cougrrcj

I did my first 'tour' - a three week, 1100 mile round trip ride to see family - on my Fuji S-10S with a 51/39 Sugino Maxy three-pin double crank and, and a 14-24 five-speed freewheel out back. Back when a 'ten speed' meant 10 gears, total, not just on the rear!! 480 miles from Cleveland to Milwaukee, then on to Madison, then back home. How did we ever survive in those Dark Ages.

Now that same Fuji wears a 48/38/28 Sakae triple and a 13-21 six-cog ultra-spaced freewheel.

Terrain is relatively flat here around the Great Lakes...

hfbill

I have a Deore XT triple on my Trek 520, and a double on my Haro 29er. I find the double easier to deal with and is a good choice for my around town utility bike. Both bikes have similar low end granny gears and climb well but the triple on the 520 has more range on the high end, and so that bike usually averages a few mph faster over distance. Of course, that's just the way I have them set up. I think you would be fine on a double, especially if the terrain you're traversing is not too radical. If you're traveling over mountain ranges, you might be slightly better off with a triple, but a properly geared double could still be adequate. Just my two cents.

djb

thats a very fair assessement, especially your take on how a triple generally will have a wider range overall than a double, at both ends, despite the norm of much larger cassettes nowadays in 10 and 11 speed of 42t and up.

One thing that doesnt come up is chain line--this is where a triple works better, where in the marjority of riding, a better chain line , less cross chaining, is going to happen with a triple.
To me this is still important,both for chain life and efficiency, and tends to not get mentioned.
How much is this important, I guess if you are selling drivetrain parts and not riding on a loaded bike then its a non issue, or not on your radar, but in my experience, NOT cross chaining for long periods of time is always better.

doubles, depending on their size, AND your total bike weight, CAN have inconvienent ring sizes where you are close to small small and big big combos a lot, which no matter what joe blow salesman says, is not great for a drivetrain for long periods.

Yan 

Yes. I use a 24/36t mountain double. 11-34 in the rear. Highest gear gets me up to about 40km/h. How often do you need to go faster than that on a tour?

Never. When I'm on a down hill my legs are taking a break.

52telecaster

+1

52telecaster

My take on the whole thing is a little different. When I do triples I go half step and granny. Usually 24-39-42, 12-36 8 Or 9 speed in back. When I do a double it's the same setup with 26-40 in front. Either one has all the range I need but for long stretches into the wind the half step has a slight advantage. For simplicity the double is really nice. In either case I rarely use the granny, but when I need it it's exceedingly nice to have.

ymmv

JaccoW

It depends on how quick you like to spin. I'm still using a triple with a 52/42/32 front and a 14/17/20/24/28/32 on the back. link.

while I don't use the 52/14 all that often I do use the 52/17 quite a bit at 30 km/h. Seems like I prefer spinning slower in a higher gear.
I do want a smaller front though as the 32/32 was not enough for some loaded touring up 15% mountains this summer.

79pmooney

It wasn't touring, but I loved the 52-42-28 X 12-23 (9-speed) setup I rode Cycle Oregon a week ago Spending most of my time shifting over a straight block (consecutive 1 tooth gaps on the cassette) is a pure joy, especially climbing multi-mile hills of several thousand feet. I hate sacrificing flat ground gear choices to get the climbing gears and I hate the reverse just as much. With triples I don't have to. (Doesn't bother my wallet that with a gear system several steps out of date, I can pick up what I need for a small fraction of the prices of the new systems and still get better gear choices.)

Ben

djb

one of the things Ive learned to appreciate over the years, or to put it better, to assess which chainrings are best for a given bike weight (total with gear) and the terrain.
One of my bikes has a 50/39/30 changed to a 50/39/26. Unloaded and lightly loaded it works fine, but at a certain point the 39 is consistently too tall and the 26 a bit low with a 11-32t cassette when I have used it with four panniers etc, as I dislike cross chaining.

This is where the standard 48/36/26 easily changed to a 24 or even 22 granny makes such a great all roiund touring cassette.

When I get to carrying more weight than usual, on a long trip in countries where I need to take more spare stuff, and maybe more water etc that translates into more weight, this is where i find a mountain triple to be so useful. In my case , a 44/32/22 fits the bill so well and makes life easier, and still have the higher gear inch top gear, about 100, 104 I think, which I personally find nice to be able to spin up to about 50-55kph, but thats me. I get off on bombing down downhills that Ive worked my ass off getting up, and yes, I can only pedal up to 50 or so, and then coast, but to me this is a bonus and fun, and in the last bunch of trips Ive done, I havent been able to get past 70 or 75k anyway, and am happy to tuck and coast past my pedalling spin out point with a 44-11.

I certainly do agree that a 36/24 would make a great all rounder double for touring, but to me it always comes back to the "why", where Ive never had any shifting issues whatsover with triples and you can have three front rings for diff situations without the cross chaining of extremes or near extremes.

throw in the additional plus of being able to use a slightly tighter cassette with a triple vs a double, and you get that extra nice riding with a few closer jumps between some gears yet still having a lower low and a higher high.

I come onto this site for fun and entertainment, and enjoy discussing bike stuff, but at least with my constant support of triples, Im coming up with hard facts combined with lots of personal experience to go against the whole "doubles are better than triples" argument.

Yan 

Having a triple crankset does not allow you to use a closer spaced cassette. Unless you exclusively credit card tour or only go to flat places (or are a beast), you will likely want a 34t low gear on the cassette. It would be great if they made a 16-34 cassette. Unfortunately they do not and we are stuck with 12-34 no matter how many chainrings we have. Harris Cyclery used to sell a custom 14-34, but last I checked they no longer offer it. Anyone know where I can get a 16-34? I'd love to have one to use with a triple.

As for the disadvantage to using a triple: the philosophical annoyance of hauling something that I use once a year. That's how it is with hobbies, you get caught up on insignificant things.

McBTC

… a solution of sorts-- the latest Shimano 11x34 cassettesffor 11 spd hubs (HG700 fits 10 speed hubs as well) are 11t to 34t and will give you 8 or 9 fairly equally spaced gears in that range.

saddlesores

would it be possible to drill out the rivets and change the spacers to 8 or 9 speed width?

McBTC

I'm not expert on that but from what I saw the 3 largest cogs on the 11 speed are attached together and installed on the hub as a unit so, my guess is that you cannot use any of the cogs independently and no doubt the the spacing would be too narrow to use as is on an 8 or 9 speed chain.

Branko D

I'm using a Deore T6000 / XT T8000 mix and match with 48-36-26 in the front and 11-36 in the rear, and it's almost perfect when it comes to gear range. I kind of wish for a 50 tooth front on some downhills, and consider changing to a 11-32 for tighter spacing quite often. Then I try a local climb which involves 15+% parts after you've already been climbing for over half a hour, and I ditch the idea of a 11-32 in the rear. The few times I've done a loaded long trip - hard to call it exactly a tour, but "carrying stuff over long distance" applies - on one I would have been entirely fine with a compact double, on the other where I ran into the mountains 130km in the ride while carrying a load of stuff - no. Shame Shimano doesn't make a brifter version of the touring groupsets, but Gevenalle offer what is effectively a bar end shifter grafted to brake levers compatible with Shimano MTB derailleurs, and it works just fine.

For a general purpose go anywhere (carrying a load, too) machine, give me a triple. I do like to spin on the uphills though, mostly trying to keep 85-90 cadence.

gauvins

I ride on 15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26-30-34. 15 to 18 are from a Miche Primato, 19-34 from Shimano XT.

JoeyBike

I toured on doubles in the late '70s, early '80s. Handled the Rocky Mountains just fine. Would help if you are comfortable spending considerable time out of the saddle. And keep you luggage very light. It can be done no prob.

jonc123

We sure do. Come down to the Ozarks in Missouri or the various mountain ranges in Arkansas. Elevation has nothing to do with it. The grade of the road does. Mount magazine comes to mind in Arkansas.