• This topic has 85 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by D0NK.
Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 86 total)
  • Just how "Wrong" is a Road Triple chainset?
  • stevious
    Full Member

    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?

    Onzadog
    Free Member

    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.

    Dickyboy
    Full Member

    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.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    cookeaa
    Full Member

    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…

    mogrim
    Full Member

    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.

    mattsccm
    Free Member

    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″.

    aracer
    Free Member

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

    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).

    seanbolton
    Free Member

    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.

    chipsngravy
    Free Member

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

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    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.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    0% wrong – helps me up Kirkstone!

    taxi25
    Free Member

    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.

    mogrim
    Full Member

    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!

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    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…

    taxi25
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    breatheeasy
    Free Member

    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…

    thomthumb
    Free Member

    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.

    mogrim
    Full Member

    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 😆

    theflatboy
    Free Member

    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://flic.kr/p/o7gueu]Dolan Preffisio – the finished bike.[/url] by theflatboy, on Flickr

    Dales_rider
    Free Member

    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 ?

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    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.

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    souldrummer
    Free Member

    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.

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

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

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    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?

    breatheeasy
    Free 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 😉

    breatheeasy
    Free Member

    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.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    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.

    adsh
    Free Member

    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.

    Dales_rider
    Free Member

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

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    bob_summers
    Full Member

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

    Shhh, don’t tell Bertie!

    finbar
    Free Member

    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?

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

    TiRed
    Full Member

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

    wheelie
    Full Member

    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

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    bob_summers – Member

    Shhh, don’t tell Bertie!

    and, that’s a massive cassette.

    wossat ratio? – something approaching 1:1?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 86 total)

The topic ‘Just how "Wrong" is a Road Triple chainset?’ is closed to new replies.