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

Personally I reckon a triple makes more sense than compact which just gives you a range of gears such that you're unlikely to be in the gear you want at any given time.

I'd use a triple and disc brakes along with a steel frame would make an excellent bike for the majority of my road riding which is audax's.

I currently use a 11-32 rear cassette and a compact, a triple would give me smoother shifting at the front and a good range with a standard road cassette.

People will mock you on the interwebz but not really in the real world.

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 ??

It just seems a bit pointless if you're only doing it for bargain reasons, surely you can find a compact groupset for the right money. Will also give you a silly range of gears for your needs if it's not a tourer or you're not spinning up super-steep hills..?

So just how beyond the pale is a triple really considered?

By bike [s]s[/s]nobs,a huge amount.

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.

You just need to adjust the high low settings on the front Mech.

Are the shifters you are looking at double or triple specific?

If you live in the south and its flat I'm sure you will get funny looks but if you live somewhere hilly then its fine. Where I live only the machines run a 39/53

People will mock you on the interwebz but not really in the real world.

^ This

Triples are fine and make a lot of sense. I use them.

I've found riding with a triple to just be frustrating, and I feel like it combines the worst parts of a compact and a double. You either have too tall a climbing gear, or too small a descending gear. There's not enough steep long climbs around where I live that I ever need a 30t, it's just uselessly spinny. If my road rides were long touring type rides then maybe, but I'm out for short fast rides. Riding with a triple on the road doesn't work for me at all.

I wouldn't just for a bargain, if you're not really sold on it then you'll probably end up disliking it once the money is forgotten about.

If you want the ratios then fair enough...

The OP is just a bit worried, after reading [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/angry-at-someone-slagging-off-my-bike ]this thread[/url]

Also, the same reason you might not have a triple (or double) on your mtb applies to road bikes too - added faff and ratio crossovers. Converting a triple groupset to a double would be a bad compromise (bad chainline and not optimal shifting) or not possible (having a triple shifter).

Triple has it's advantages (stick a close ratio cassette on without sacrificing an easy climbing gear, better spread of gears etc.), ignoring the roadie fasion police the only real disadvantages in my eyes are that the cranksets are a PITA to clean (I always found that anyway!) and chainline not always great on big ring so you tend to end up shifting at front more than with a compact.

I'm not sure the ratios is that convincing an argument.

We live in a hilly area (edge of exmoor) my wife went from a triple with a 12-25 to a new bike with a compact and 11-30. Her granny gear is the same on both bikes but the shifting and clunking and general cleaness of use is far better on the compact. And it looks right!

If you ride mtbs you'r legs are used to cassette ratios that are more spread then a standard roadie cassette anyway

I've found riding with a triple to just be frustrating, and I feel like it combines the worst parts of a compact and a double.

+1 and I was quite open minded too - expected it to suit my riding.

I'd get the bargain groupset with the compact double in wrong crank length and meanwhile source a pair of s/h 170mm crankarms - if that's viable financially? You can sell the other arms obvs.

I was very glad of my triple in the Pyrenees a couple of weeks ago, and despite being surrounded by ~7000 Spanish roadies none of them sneered.

It is a pain on the downhills, though - you spin out too fast.

~£300 is about the budget, yep Merlin are on the list I can have a 170mm Standard double chainset from them (53/39) and an 11-28 cassette almost replicates the range of my current bike's 50/34 with 12-25 cassette which I get on with quite well, TBH I don't need a 53-11 ratio, its a shame they don't do a 13-30 for mincers like me who've accidentally bought a Standard rather than compact chainset...

I'm still thinking I'd rather have a compact or a triple and a narrower range cassette, the bike isn't really going to be an audax type build, but I will want to do longer rides on it,I can see the range of a triple being handy...

I guess cassette choice has as much impact as anything here doesn't it... I could go with the 53/39, take a dose of MTFU and possibly buy a "Big climing day" cassette for when I know I'll need it, how big a sprocket can the 5700 mech accomodat? could I get an MTB 11-30 or 11-32 to work? or would that be a bit shite too?

Less wrong than pushing up a hill because you've run out of gears 🙂

-oops-

Nah I'm not getting 175s again, my knees have been Sooo happy since all my bikes went to 170, even as a stop gap I know I can't do it...

Send me your standard cranks and I'll send you a 105 compact with new rings on...

for 5700 in silver or black, 170mm Compact is an out of stock option on both Merlin and Ribble so far as I can see, triple or Standard I can have 170 from one or the other the question really is MTFU or Spin like a mad thing I guess...

I'd mock you in the real world.

Only in a banter kind of way though 🙂 I don't really like triples, more for the wider q-factor and the ratios that they come with, plus that I find a double provides all the necessary range but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with them.

Who are you trying to please?

Us lot of aggravated naysayers or yourself?

Triples fine IMO 😀

Send me your standard cranks and I'll send you a 105 compact with new rings on...

Hmmmm... really?

I'd mock you in the real world.

TBH I think I'd deserve it...

Who are you trying to please?

My legs, piss poor cadence and choppy pedaling style...

I get on OK on a heavier bike with a compact and a 12-25 9 speed at present, but this new build demands new parts and I'm struggling to replicate what I've currently got within budget...

Oh Christ! I've become Hora!

Slightly leftfield but Shimano's CX50 chainset is available relatively cheap and IIRC is the same as 105 but with different chainrings.

I use a tripe i dont care what they think

I have almost never used the granny* it just came on the bike

* hardknott pass and once to go slow with a fat biffer

Oh Christ! I've become Hora!

Woah there cowboy,you have a long ,long way to go before it gets that bad.

If you don't mind using square taper cranks, [url= http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m2b0s109p0 ]SPA Cycles[/url] have a variety of Stronglight double and triples where can choose more or less whatever ring combinations you want.
Might be a bit too retro for a flash carbon bike though.

I've got a triple on my nice road bike, as I'd rather spin than walk up hills when I get tired. And closer ratio cassette has less gaps at the low end.

monkeyfudger - Member

Send me your standard cranks and I'll send you a 105 compact with new rings on...

I was very glad of my triple in the Pyrenees a couple of weeks ago, and despite being surrounded by ~7000 Spanish roadies none of them sneered.

It is a pain on the downhills, though - you spin out too fast.

I don't understand your logic there. My triple comes with 30-39-53T chainset and I have an 11-28 cassette on the back. If you are spinning out 53-11 gears then you must be Fabian Cancellara.

No don't do it just to save a few quid. 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.

none of them sneered.

On the outside 😛

It's your bike, put on it what you really, find a way to justify the extra cost of the double. You'll not need the granny ring very often at all. And if you're doubting if you want it now you'll only end up wanting to change it in the future.

Swapped out my triple for compact shortly after purchase 10 years ago. Shifting and chain noise much improved, don't really miss the really low gears or the higher gears - just suits me better 50/34 generally. However if Ilived somewhere with a lot more 20% climbs, I might have kept it just in case.

So put what you want on. Helpful, aren't I?

I've a triple on my Vaya.

Makes sense to me...

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

On a "normal" road bike triples are overkill. Ask yourself why they are an option rather than the norm, and its not because every one bar you has amazing athletic ability. You just don't need a triple on a regular 30-50 miles road ride, you just don't. Now triples have their place, and their place is on a touring bike that will go hundreds of miles in variable terrain, not a couple of loops of your local towns and villages with the occasional stern-ish tarmaced hill.

theres plenty of steep climbs around here, compact and a 28 cassette is fine.

for comparison in gear inches, 34 front, 28 rear = 32 gear inches
30 front (9 speed triple) 25 back (standard cassette) = 31.7 gear inches

i.e almost no difference

depending on your derailleur you can put an mtb cassette on, my hefty mate has 50/34 12-32 with a compact double brings the gear inches down to a measly 28, way below your standard triple

touring bikes are usually carrying plenty of extra weight which might necessitate a triple. a " good" lithe stiff road bike should climb fine with a compact without froome style legs!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a triple on any bicycle, especially if you have a good practical reason for having it on there.

However, if this is your nice road bike and you have some kind of aesthetic objection to triples then you're probably best off avoiding them. Even if you know your reasons for preferring a double/compact/whatever aren't entirely rational you're still unlikely to be fully pleased with the bike of you compromise for the sake of a few quid or a few weeks wait.

Have you checked the german websites for stock?

I use a 105 triple on my road bike. I'll be doing the outlaw triathlon on it later this month. I'll wager it comes in before a good number of double equipped tint trial specific machines.

I find the ratios really useable actually. I hardly ever use the granny but the 39 and 50 work quite well together I find.

Pretty much down to personal taste & the ability to not be bothered about what other people think.

I have a triple & as above pretty much only use the granny on rare occasions & trips to the alps, but then again I don't like big gaps between my gears & the low ratio won't be much different from my set up to a compact with 11-28 cassette, trimming between front rings can be a faff & I certainly wouldn't want for racing but then again I wouldn't want a compact for racing either.

Right then I've Ordered the silver 5700 group with a Standard chainset and the 11-28 Cassette from Merlin which I think I'll be alright with...

My sums tell me that the 39-28 ratio isn't actually much different to my current 34-25, plus the new bike will be a bit lighter, I just hope the steps on the cassette aren't too big

I checked and a Tiagra 12-30 Cassette can be had for under £20, or if I really need it I could always buy a compact chainset later...

Cheers all for the input, even the bits I've basically ignored...

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

Ihere are quite a few Cat 1 climbs within 20-30km of my front door, and heading down them I regularly spin out.

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?