[Closed] Just how "Wrong" is a Road Triple chainset?

Invariably you will get much nicer shifting. You can get rid of the abortion that is a modern huge range chainset and the gaps that go with them.
Front shifting is usually better as you have chainrings that are closer together teeth-wise. If you choose your rings and cassette nicely you do not have a lot of swapping between front rings. Not that it matters.
Those who protest that these faults exist inevitably have not got it right or live in the flat lands and don't need low gears. By which I mean sub 27".

[quote=mogrim ]

If you are spinning out 53-11 gears then you must be Fabian Cancellara.

53/11 at 110rpm is 66kph. At that speed you're far better off in a full tuck than pedalling (also applies to 52/12 at 59kph).

A triple makes a lot of sense on a road bike, particularly for touring or training. It gives a good spread of gears and small gaps between gears.

Compact chain rings have taken over in recent years, they now cover the range well, but at the expense of bigger gaps between gears.

It's your bike, you can do whatever you want with it.

It makes me both laugh and cry that this question even gets asked.

Its horses for courses of course. Some folk like a wide range if gears with narrow jumos between them. I couldn't get on with 39/52 let alone a compact. Others, funnily enough, have different views.

Thanks for the laughs that all the various guff posted has brought me.

0% wrong - helps me up Kirkstone!

Not sure I agree with the no point spinning out a 53/11 gear. There's lots of hills around by me that let you do it. I'll accelerate hard through the gears then get into a tuck, you'll get a higher speed than if you just let gravity do the work. You can also get on the pedals sooner and keep your speed up for longer once you hit the flat.
It's fun for me but different people like different things I suppose.

53/11 at 110rpm is 66kph. At that speed you're far better off in a full tuck than pedalling (also applies to 52/12 at 59kph).

Funnily enough I've worked that one out empirically, when my legs can't go fast enough 🙂

I'm not actually sure what ratio I've got, but given my bike's a Decathlon Triban something or other it's probably a 50/12 or similar - I run out of legs at 55kph... If and when I have the money for a new bike I'll get something a bit faster!

[quote=taxi25 ]Not sure I agree with the no point spinning out a 53/11 gear. There's lots of hills around by me that let you do it. I'll accelerate hard through the gears then get into a tuck, you'll get a higher speed than if you just let gravity do the work.

Rubbish. At the speed where you're spinning out air resistance is such a big factor that a better tuck (one where you can't pedal) makes more difference than the amount of extra power you can put in by pedalling. It just feels like you're getting an advantage from pedalling when you aren't.

I'm not talking about not pedalling up through the gears - yes do that until you're up to ~35mph, but after that tuck.

Just had a call from Merlin, apparently they were picking my order and they've run out of 105 rear mechs...

They wanted to know if I Would accept an Ultegra at no extra cost?

I suppose I'll just have to live with it.... life is full of hardships...

Certainly isnt rubbish aracer. The longer you can put power down before you get into a tuck the more speed you will carry through the descent. Maybe not much, but some. With your logic you might aswell stop pedaling at the top of every hill and just tuck in.

I have, in the garage, a triple, a compact and a standard chainset. I don't like the compact - the jump between the rings is too big and I always found myself on the cusp between the two rings, which led to constant shifting. I could have changed rings either bigger or smaller, but I just got a triple because I mostly train on my road bike and sometimes I want to avoid pushing too hard and I live where there are plenty of 1:5 hills. When I was in Germany it was very flat so I stuck the standard on and was fine.

I normally have 12-28 on the back, and 50/12 isn't particularly high so I sometimes spin out on hills but that's really not that big of a deal. I may go to an 11t next though.

I just put an 11-25 cassette on though and my standard for my flat road race last weekend, and I'm glad I did - although I didn't end up in top gear the close spacing was lovely.

And this is why you shouldn't ask advice from 'experts' on a forum:

Buy the triple and just remove the granny ring. 39/50 should be OK.

If you struggle either add the granny or change middle cog for a 34.

Middle chainring on a standard triple won't go lower than a 38...

I don't like the compact - the jump between the rings is too big

I agree. Sram (or truvative) used to do compacts as 36-50 which is much closer to the ratio of 39-53. It's a shame that it's not more popular as imo it's a great compromise.

 

The longer you can put power down before you get into a tuck the more speed you will carry through the descent.

Very true - my mate has higher gearing on his bike, and always beats me on the downhills. At least that's my excuse 😆

Sundayjumper - Member

How much money are you talking about ? I got a 105 compact groupset from Merlin erlier this year for a couple of quid over £300. Admittedly that was with 175mm cranks but are 170mm *really* loads more expensive ??

I got an entire 105 compact groupset from Merlin the other day for just under £300.

Here it is (any excuse... 🙂 )
[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/14510769526_4fc1cf7307_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/14510769526_4fc1cf7307_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/o7gueu ]Dolan Preffisio - the finished bike.[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people// ]theflatboy[/url], on Flickr

52/39 or 53/39 is all you needed, unless you are collecting your pension. Then you may consider a compact.
Or is it too late and you've gone triple ?

breatheeasy - Member
And this is why you shouldn't ask advice from 'experts' on a forum:

Middle chainring on a standard triple won't go lower than a 38...

Quite: not all triples are standard, so you too are lacking in expertese.

IMO triples are awful on a 'normal' road bike (i'm excluding tourers), millions of gears but lots of clunky shifting at the front to try and find the right one, plus increased Q-factor, and pointless excess weight. A 50-34 compact is perfect for 90+% of road riding.

I find the complete opposite. The 42T middle ring on a triple suits about 75% of my riding, with the inner and outer reserved for the hills/ feeling knackered/ in a hurry. By contrast, a compact means I'm always hunting between the chainrings.

52/39 or 53/39 is all you need

the 52/36 sets seem a better compromise, still a big 16T jump tho.

I'm kinda torn on this, standard double is usually ok for my "normal" riding but not low enough for when I do big hilly rides (steep ok, big miles ok, steep + big miles and I struggle) since I've switched to xc commuting the normal:big ride ratio has got much closer so thinking compact would be better.

IMO triples are awful on a 'normal' road bike (i'm excluding tourers), millions of gears but lots of clunky shifting at the front to try and find the right one

Nope, the overlap ensures that you aren't shifting all the time. At least, I'm not. I shift far more at the front when using a compact, as mentioned I am on the cusp between big and little rings.

For years I have always used a triple especially when I have been to the Alps. However, I used a compact for months on my winter bike, as it came with it. When I went back to a summer bike, with the triple on, it felt really odd. I couldn't hold a gear for as long as I could on the compact, and gear changing was just too frequent and noisy. In the end I have subsequently gone compact on the summer bike with a fairly wise range cassette. I might retain the triple in case I manage to get to the Alps or the Pyrenees in the next year or so, but as the ratio difference is minute, from what I can tell, I might see if it could go to a good home somewhere else.

I went for a 36T chainring recently,and it feels much better.

Thinking about it a bit more I still don't quite get why manufactureres still make "Standard" 130 BCD and "Compact" 110 BCD cranks, why not just make 110 BCD only and a wider variety of Rings in 2 tooth increments from 34 - 54 to fit that, so egotists can run 54/42 and wimps can run 50/34....

They end up making Two versions of the same cranks when one could cover all their customer's wants with a wider variety of chain rings....

What am I missing?

Quite: not all triples are standard, so you too are lacking in expertese.

Not at all - if you actually expertly ready my post I said

Middle chainring on a [b]standard[/b] triple won't go lower than a 38

Thinking about it a bit more I still don't quite get why manufactureres still make "Standard" 130 BCD and "Compact" 110 BCD cranks, why not just make 110 BCD only and a wider variety of Rings in 2 tooth increments from 34 - 54 to fit that, so egotists can run 54/42 and wimps can run 50/34....

The new Shimano (and IIRC Campag) cranks are '110' and you just pick the bigger or sdmaller chainrings.

In the past it was though that big 110BCD chainrings weren't that stiff hence the larger 130BCD crank arms. In the current trend for big chunky crank specific rings they can be built a bit more burly and it's not an issue so there can be one crank size can rule them all.

Of course, Shimano have chosen to make a 4 arm offset version of 110BCD as a new 'satndard' but thats a different conversation.

breatheeasy - Member
Quite: not all triples are standard, so you too are lacking in expertese.
Not at all - if you actually expertly ready my post I said
Middle chainring on a standard triple won't go lower than a 38

so I'm technically correct

The poster you responded to wasnt talking specifically about std triples, so you aren't.

IMHO a triple gives a lot of benefits which surpass any aesthtics or rules. The 16t gap on a compact is horrible, standard is awful for climbing and the ability to maintain cadence a real performance booster. 53/42/30 with 13/29 here. The 42 is a great ring and 30/29 good to have in reserve.

Jeez some of you guys must be seriously unfit........
Running triples and compacts and all

Jeez some of you guys must be seriously unfit........
Running triples and compacts and all

You're right - I'm way slower than Chris Froome, which is why I haven't copied his gearing.

Jeez some of you guys must be seriously unfit........
Running triples and compacts and all

Shhh, don't tell Bertie!

[img] [/img]

Andy Wilkinson's bike. I wonder if any of the snobs on here rode a 53.50 25 miler last year?

How 'bout them triples?

[img] [/img]

http://www.cycling-news.info/road-cycling-news/Andy-Wilkinson-s-Dolan-time-trial-bike/17608

Half-step and granny is the triple of choice. That and a five speed block.

I run a 48 36 26 x 160mm cranks with a 12 26 cassette on my Lynskey Sportive. Only use the granny ring on extremely steep hills. The chainset ratios are the same as the only mtb chainset Campag have ever made. Granny useful when carrying panniers

bob_summers - Member

Shhh, don't tell Bertie!

and, that's a massive cassette.

wossat ratio? - something approaching 1:1?

34*32, although that was for Mte Zoncolan - not sure whether he's a habitual compact user.

Semi-related question - I'm looking for a new crank on ebay (FSA sl-k) and often the triple version is cheaper than the double. So if I take the granny off (leaving 52 39), is it just a normal double or is the chainline and spacing off?

The spacing between rings will be the same but the chainline on the middle/outer will be slightly further outboard. No big deal though so long as you trim the front mech to suit.

I personally have a compact up front and two cassettes 11-25 for normal day to day riding and an 11-30 i bodged together especially for the Dragon Ride, i'm a big guy of normal fitness and it was fine for me. Trouble if you get to a point where you are riding in granny at front and 28 rear then you are probably being overtaken by people walking.

34*32, although that was for Mte Zoncolan - not sure whether he's a habitual compact user.

Seem to remember he used something similar a couple of years ago at the Vuelta when they headed up La Bola del Mundo in Madrid.

Trouble if you get to a point where you are riding in granny at front and 28 rear then you are probably being overtaken by people walking.

Not quite, but not far off 🙂

Thanks, would be another option then.

if you get to a point where you are riding in granny at front and 28 rear then you are probably being overtaken by people walking.

Of course my usual pedal til I puke, stop for a breather, pedal til I puke, stop for a rest method may over time be slower than walkers - but that's a fitness issue not gearing 🙂