Triple ring chainsets have fallen out of fashion in recent years, but are they threatened with extinction?
Modern road bikes can come with any one of a number of different types of chainset fitted as standard – there’s standard, compact and semi-compact chainsets for starters. But just because your bike came fitted with a certain type of chainset doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right one for you.
We asked SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo if they feel that the triple chainsets days are numbered. Here are their replies:
Campagnolo
Campagnolo hasn’t introduced any new triple chainsets since 2012, but their Athena 11-speed, and Centaur and Veloce 10-speed triples are still available.
Campagnolo told us:
While most athletes are covered by the gearing offered by compact chainsets and larger cassettes, there are still a faithful few who are quite keen to use the triple. Several requests from areas in France, Belgium and Canada strangely enough.
However, with the advantages of the compact crankset and a movement towards larger tooth count cassettes we believe that those wishing to run a triple ring crankset will diminish further as they will adopt increasingly more often the two chainring solution. At the moment we still offer the triple.
SRAM
As we mentioned above, SRAM has never bothered with road bike triples, and in recent years has been promoting single-chainring gear systems as the ultimate in simplicity even for racing. What they had to say about triples isn’t very surprising then:
Is the triple chainset dead?
Dead & buried.
Where do you see the future of modern road bike chainsets?
There’s a bright future for 1x. Simpler, quieter, more secure. Current cassette options allow gear range for most cycling disciplines. 1x even provides a more aerodynamic drivetrain for TT and triathlon. 2x remains dominant, of course, because it can provide the widest gear range and closer gear ratio steps.
Shimano
You could once get a Dura-Ace triple chainset if you were building a very posh pass-stormer, but no more. As its top-end groupsets switched from 10 to 11 sprockets, Shimano quietly dropped triples.
Shimano told us:
Within Shimano’s current road line up triple chainsets are more common at Tiagra level and below. These groupsets attract a wider audience/riding style and therefore the demands on the components are different to those favoured by competitive and performance cyclists.
Triple chainsets have closer gear ratios, making the steps between the gears easier to move through, and therefore increasing the efficiency of personal performance. For many riders, a triple chainset provides options to allow you to continue cycling in many circumstances/conditions.
However, at the competitive end of cycling, trends for many years have been in favour of double chainsets. Wider cassette ratios are now able to cover the vast majority of gear ranges, in combination with lower crankset weight values that performance athletes demand.
Which chainset is right for you?
So if the triple is dead, what are your common choices? Let’s go through the main road systems to help you find the right one for you.
53/39 ‘Standard’ or racing set-up
Ideal for: Pros, strong riders, or flat conditions (maybe a bit more than that but you get my drift)
50/34 ‘Compact’
Ideal for: Most people, good all-rounder ideally suited to hilly conditions
52/36 ‘Semi-compact’
Ideal for: Increasingly pros, but also the rest of us mortals too, strong all rounder, ideal for hilly conditions, paired with 11-32 cassette should get most people up even the biggest mountains.
48/32 and 46/30 ‘Sub-compact’
Ideal for: Touring, gravel and adventure bikes, it takes the existing idea of the compact chainset a step further, yielding gearing that’s ideal for bikes used across a range of surfaces and terrains
1×11 single chainring
Ideal for: Cyclocross, gravel and adventure riding. The single ring and wide-range (10-42t) cassette provides much of the range of a compact and shifting simplicity along with increased mud and ground clearance
– Read more: Which chainset is right for you?
The compact killed the triple
Gearing options have increased substantially over the years with the advent of the compact chainset the biggest reason for the demise of the triple. The arrival of the compact immediately sparked debate surrounding the death of the triple chainset, and they’re now much less noticeable in any of the big three groupset manufacturers – SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo – ranges than they used to be.
Before the compact came along, your crankset choice was largely split between a double for racing and a triple for touring and Audax riding. At this time of limited choice, a triple was appealing for any non-racing applications, particularly touring or Audax bikes laden with luggage, the lower gears helping to spin up the climbs.
The new wave of sportive bikes sparked the development for a chainset that offered most of the range of the triple but with better chainline, lower weight and, arguably, better looks on a sporty carbon bike.
– Struggling on the hills? If you need lower gears to make climbing easier, here’s how to get them
The compact was an instant success. Popularised by FSA soon after the turn of the century, the company met these sportive bike requirements and when paired with the increased range of the 10-speed cassettes introduced at roughly the same time, provided most of the same low gearing as a typical triple setup.
A triple does offer a wide range of gears, but there is a lot of duplication. A 50/34 compact with a 12-29 11-speed cassette provided minimal difference in range from a 53/42/30 triple with a 13-29 cassette. The small compromise in reduced gear choices and range was compensated by reduced less gear duplication, lower groupset system weight and a narrow Q-factor.
Compacts were even used in professional races too, Tyler Hamilton using a compact on a mountain stage of the 2003 Tour de France. The fate of the triple for the new breed of performance focused sportive bikes and cyclists was sealed forever.
The chainset evolution
The evolution of the chainset and the reduction of the number of rings has been helped by the growing cassette range and increased gears of each subsequent groupset release. Back in the day, you’d be lucky with a 6-speed, 11-23 cassette, fine for racers, but the only way to get low gears without huge gaps — for touring, Audax or leisure cycling — was to fit a triple chainset.
With the advent of 9, 10 and 11-speed groupsets and an increased cassette range, with 11-30 and 11-34 now common options, there’s less need for a triple chainset. You can now get a wide spread of ratios with less duplication of gears.
A triple chainset is essentially a double with a smaller chainring bolted on. Triple chainsets require special front derailleurs and shifters, along with a matching long cage rear derailleur to accommodate the long chain needed to cover the full range of sprocket options. Reducing the need for specific components was a boon to manufacturers as it tidied up product lines.
And so they fell out of favour with manufacturers. Shimano and Campagnolo wasted no time dropping triples from their top-end ranges, Dura-Ace and Record respectively, replacing them with new compacts. SRAM didn’t even make a triple chainset when it first got into the road bike groupset market, and has been a proponent of the single ring drivetrain.
Now there are an increasing array of options. The semi-compact (52/36t) has been a hit, popular with racers and performance minded cyclists, and some reckon it even threatens the compact.
More recent is the sub-compact (48/32 and 46/30) for adventure and touring cyclists where lower gears for tackling hillier terrain with heavier bikes are required. With a 46/30 and an 11-34 cassette you’re looking at the kind of gear range that used to be only easily achieved with a triple, and it’s possible to go even wider and lower if you bend the rules a bit.
– First look: Does the Praxis Works Alba 48/32 herald the era of the sub-compact chainset?
Add to the mix too SRAM’s 1×11 approach, which pairs a single chainring with a super wide-range cassette, and it looks like the triple chainset has been pushed to the very fringes of cycling.
Do you think the triple is dead or is there still a place for it?
128 thoughts on “Are we seeing the death of the triple chainset?”
A rare sight indeed these
A rare sight indeed these days…. a compact chain-set is lighter, more efficient, easier to set up and maintain and should get you up most things with an appropriate cassette
Chris Hayes wrote:
if u need a 11-40 or 11-42 to get by with your double +50/34 any tripple will be lighter.
Compact over triple? Never. I
Compact over triple? Never. I’ve tried a compact on 3 seperate occasions, hated it every time, too many big jumps in gears from end to end. Have now settled on an excellent solution for all bar my race bikes: Campag triple, with 53/39/30 rings. Matches my double chainset race bikes, but with the ability to spin away like a food blender up hills. Living in Scotland these days that’s very welcome.
Maybe triples will die….but
Maybe triples will die….but not because of gearing options but because of E-bikes. I’m sure as batteries get smaller then we’ll probably see 1x groupsets with battery power for the less able. Hell, with 250w extra on tap I’d happily run 53/39 .
My touring bike – fully
My touring bike – fully loaded with 4 paniers, tent, toolkit and spares, and 6 litres of water in bottles and bidons, simply would not have got up Mont Ventoux without it’s super-low triple enabled 22-front, 32-rear granny gear.
We’re not all ‘athletes’ all the time. Sometimes, we’re just riding a bike, and we’d like to be able to do it in the most comfortable gear. For me, touring dictates wide range and narrow ratio.
Triple. Suck it, SRAM.
TheLonelyOne wrote:
… loaded with vast amounts of luggage riding for fun up a vast mountain. Tell me again how you’re not an “athlete”?
Anyway, the key bit for Triple fans is to buy the things and prove there’s still a market. If shops can’t shift the stock they’ll stop ordering it, and if it isn’t ordered the manufacurers will stop making it in their current ranges and won’t design it in their future ranges.
Al__S wrote:
Different perspectives, I think. I see “athletes” as folk trying to get maximum performance. We were trying to get maximum fun. Perhaps I’ve started taking my level of fitness for granted, spending too much time looking up at how far away the pinnacle is, rather than how high I’ve come.
It took us 3 and a half hours to get up the 24km from Sault. We took 90 minutes to get the 6km up from Chalet Reynard – or about walking pace! But we weren’t in a hurry, got great photos, and still overtook the racing bike guy who couldn’t turn his lowest gear and had to either unclip or fall over in front of us. Memories made in cycling through the fog, watching the sunshine blaze as we rode through the cloud, and then dressing up with as much as we could put on in the freezing blast chiller of the summit wind. I never once think about how difficult it was, because the bike let me work at my own pace.
Going down the Malaucène side with all that gear though – that was… exciting…
[/quote]
[/quote]
Anyway, the key bit for Triple fans is to buy the things and prove there’s still a market. If shops can’t shift the stock they’ll stop ordering it, and if it isn’t ordered the manufacurers will stop making it in their current ranges and won’t design it in their future ranges.
[/quote]
That’s the equivalent of banks telling us there is no call for them on the high street as people aren’t using them (they aren’t there anymore)
TheLonelyOne wrote:
Maybe when the kids that run SRAM hit middle age they will sing the praises of triples.
Tulio’s best invention.
TheLonelyOne wrote:
Same here…touring in the mountains just wouldn’t be the same without a triple. Shifts beautifully with Tiagra shifters and front mech, and XT rear mech.
In use:
90 rpm in top gear (48/11) is 32 mph 🙂 Of course I could ditch the outer ring, but mountain descents just would be dull.
TheLonelyOne wrote:
Pefect. Awed. Thank you. My touring bike – loaded with only 2 paniers, incl. the tent, toolkit and spares, only 2 litres of water in bottles, crawled up Grand Colombier with a 34-50 compact and a 11-34 on the back. I learnt my lesson (and strained my achilles’). I now have a triple: 26-39-50 on the front, and the same 11-34 on the back. Yes there’s a lot of overlap, but in the 27 gears plenty of sweet spots. No 1×11 MTB type gearing is going to give me that, Mr SRAM.
What’s the smallest cog you
What’s the smallest cog you can have on a cassette? 9? What’s the limitation there?
I’d love to ride a do-it-all 1x, electronic, wireless groupo on the road bike some day.
unconstituted wrote:
current limitation is the design of the freehub and cassette. 11T is the smallest you can go on a standard shimano/sram/campag freehub
sram XD freehub allows a minimum 10T sprocket; there the limitation is the size of the axle (12mm)
you could do a 9T with a quick release 9mm axle and a different freehub design, but not with anything that’s currently available
dave atkinson wrote:
FYI, e*thirteeen sells a 9t – 44t 11-speed cassette. It mounts onto a SRAM XD freehub & is supposed to work with any suitable long cage derailleur (so, I’d guess that means Apex 1 , Rival 1 etc.). It’s not even particularly heavy – in fact, the quoted weight is a bit less than the SRAM 10t – 42t cassettes I have on my ‘cross/gravel bike. Not cheap however, £200 @ CRC, maybe a bit less from Europe, so I won’t be buying one. Sign of the times though.
dave atkinson wrote:
No, cassettes are available for XD freehub with 9t small cog. I have a Leonardi 11s 9-36 CX cassette (https://leonardistore.com/products/general-lee-11v-9-36-cx), and E*THIRTEEN make both 11s and 12s XD cassettes with 9t small cog.
unconstituted wrote:
Shimano/SRAM splined freehubs are limited to 11T.
SRAM’s XD driver, which seems both threaded and splined, can accept a 10T.
Shimano actually made a groupset that had special hubs that could accept a 9T cassette. It was Capreo – specifically meant for small-wheeled bicycles, such as mini velos and folding bikes. I first heard of it in 2013, and it’s still being sold, but it’s nowhere near as popular as its other drivetrain stuff. Most 20″ folding bikes can accept Shimano road bike drivetrain parts, and it’s one area where triples are almost never seen, and a 53/39T or 56/44T crank is beneficial.
triple chainsets, just aren’t
triple chainsets, just aren’t worth the hassle, as setting up the front mech is a nightmare, as at least with a double, you set the limit screws and that’s pretty much it.
personally, i doubt i’ll ever go back to a double unless it’s Di2 or something with synchro shift, as after using 1x for a few years, it’s just easier and less hassle, and as i don’t have any interest in racing, a 11-42 cassette with a 38t up front is all the range i need.
ashliejay wrote:
= you mean tripple with Shamano and SRAM levers are a nightmare to setup. Any monkey can set it up with Campagnolo levers with micro trim.
Setup a tripple with Campy 9 speed, or with Campy Chorus/Record 10 speed levers = dead easy.
ashliejay wrote:
When I set up my triple front mech, I need to set the limit screws – just a minute, isn’t that the same?
RMurphy195 wrote:
With both systems you adjust limit screws for smallest chainring and biggest sprocket, and then biggest chainring and smallest sprocket, and then adjust the cable until there is 0.5mm clearance between the chain and the FD cage in smallest chainring and smallest sprocket with trim if necessary. Review limit screw adjustment and repeat as necessary until set up.
That is the same procedure for double or triple.
It shouldn’t be any more hassle unless there is a fault in the drivetrain e.g. the FD is not correctly aligned, FD wrong height, wrong length BB is installed etc. All of which will affect geometry and in the case of a triple whether shifting onto the middle ring works as intended, which of course affects a triple more than a double owing to the lack of middle ring 🙂
I liked triples. I probably
I liked triples. I probably sound like an old fogey, but it was just so much easier to change into the gear you wanted with a triple than a compact double. No faffing around with both levers, just flick one and you were there.
Really the problem for the triple is the ever-expanding number of gears on the cassette. I for one never noticed any advantage with having more than a 7-speed and nowadays you can get the same number and range of gears with a 10/11 speed cassette and a compact double as we used to have with a triple – but they aren’t as easy to get to. I know the double may be lighter, but a triple was more robust – and not all of us are weight weenies.
Having said that, all my current bikes except the tandem have compact doubles, and I really can’t be bothered to change them. Sometimes you just have to accept that the march of progress is retrograde.
Rod Marton wrote:
Really? So the closer spacing between the gears wasn’t something you appreciated?
The problem now is that the spacing between the gears has increased again thanks to 1x set-ups.
I’d love to see 50-36t, 48-34t, 46-32t double options as this will reduce the huge jump when changing between chainrings to something more similar to what you find on a triple. Combine these with a wide range 11 or 12 speed cassette and there isn’t a need for a triple.
Shimano have done somthing along these lines with the 11 speed mountain bike groups and the double chainsets they contain.
That said, a triple does make more sense in one way – small for up, middle for level and big for down. With a double it can take a little more thought to set yourself up for the road ahead.
joules1975 wrote:
I can follow your explanations and find the 12-speed cassette option especially interesting which I would also welcome.
Rod Marton wrote:
I too have never seen the need to go beyond 3×7. It’s the only set-up ever on my TREK 930 which is close on 25 years old and perhaps 50k+ miles having been used for commuting, trails, light touring etc. (though it is a bit if a Triggers Broom bike with several new wheelsets and other various parts).
It deals with just about everything I need it to adequately.
1×11 or 1×12 (or more?) are O.K. for those that want to spend weekends fine tuning everything, but I stopped all that when I stopped adjusting points on the car every other weekend.
And another thing, whilst a single ring at the front is undoubtedly more aerodynamic (personally I’d be a lot more aerodynamic if I lost a few stone) surely the little gain made in this respect is lost pulling the chain around a microscopic small cog and more resistance (and wear) from a greater bend in the chain.
I have two bikes, a trekking
I have two bikes, a trekking with a triple, and a road bike with a compact. Sometimes I miss the triple on the road bike, but as I don’t have much weight it’s not a real problem because the bike can accelerate much faster anyway.
But for the trekking bike I LOVE the triple. I can use it to have decent acceleration despite the weight (and I can change a lot of ratio with one move), and to be more efficient if I use a trailer or even slightly loaded panniers.
I understand that triples are less needed with more range on the cassette and less weight of the average bike, but there is no need to standardize on the “right” things. The different options is part of the beauty of bikes. Would you want to standardize on double or triple beers?
People who lack riding
People who lack riding experience might claim that the triple is dead. But I don’t bother listening to them.
I built my Tripster up with
I built my Tripster up with 40/28 chainring and swap the rear wheel with either 11-40 or 11-32 cassette. It has a low gearing of 18″ high gearing of 96″. I can ride up mountains and also do pacey club runs with my bike.
Most people don’t need a 48, 50,52,53 chainring.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
What chainset? I could live with 40/28 & 11-32 when my beloved triple dies.
PpPete wrote:
What chainset? I could live with 40/28 & 11-32 when my beloved triple dies.
— CXR94Di2
Shimano XT M785 chainset
CXR94Di2 wrote:
You’re totally right. Hopefully smaller doubles will start becoming more readily available soon. There are a few offerings out now, but not much! 105 and Tiagra (and their equivalent Sram/Campy groups) should have 46/30 options. People always bang on about cassettes having big range, but 50-11 just isn’t necessary if your not in a pace line. 95% of the cassettes out there have an 11 at the small end.
I’m running a 50/39/30 up front and 12-28 10 speed on my newest build. 13-32 in the back would be ideal, but I’m still looking for that cassette. Might be able to do a 14-32 with a Miche cassette.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Update to my earlier posting
I originally had the 40/28 crankset, I found on some occasions that 40*11 wasnt sufficient, so upped the outer ring to 44t. This was much better and could now keep pace on flats and slight descents with hitting silly cadence.
I could of stayed with this setup, but I like to tinker and try options.
So I decided to go for a triple Di2 XTR front derailleur and a XT triple crankset 48/36/26. According to Shimano the biggest gear this derailleur will tak is 40t. Well it can take alot more
. I have now done this conversion and the results work perfectly, with improved chain line, greater range of gearing. I use syncro shift to select the ideal chainring for the speed I’m travelling at. It also works in manual mode with a great deal of cross chaining, ,not ideal riding technique when syncro works much better.
Over the last few years my
Over the last few years my retro-grouch hankering for triples has declined, though I still find the jumps on a compact too large if running a 12-32 (I am still on 10 speed). The sub compact and 11speed would probably get rid of that problem, but I am not spending money to upgrade to 11sp, happy to have all my bikes on 10sp for the foreseeable.
I still really like my triple on Audax bike though – (28-38-48 x 12-27) gives a lovely spread of gears (not range, that’s easy, it’s where the cogs fall into your cadence that counts!) I also have bar end levers on that bike too after being driven quietly mad on Paris-Brest-Paris by STIs that no one seemed to be able to get right (fecking 105-5700, yuk).
In the past I have done really silly things like run triples with straight blocks, which, in the days of 7 and 8 speed gave a wonderful range and very narrow spread – no wasted ratios. I still think a 3×8 with friction levers is probably the strongest most durable and flexible gear set around and one I would consider had I the luxury of riding around the world.
And I think Campys Racing triple was probably one of the prettiest groupsets ever. God I am sad.
But yes, more choice is good, and STIs make setting up triples an utter sh*t festival.
Just like steel frames,
Just like steel frames, Brooks saddles, wool baselayers and many other things that are considered ‘old hat’ in the perennial drive to sell you yet more new stuff.
Oh but, they do. They DO! And they will tell you so with remarkable conviction.
I don’t know if it’s coincidence but it appears that the people who need 52×11 to be able to ride downhill also seem to need 34×32 to go up it as well.
Simon E wrote:
Big guys and I’m one of them don’t need a 52×11 for downhills. Gravity works just aswell. I was out for a group ride at the weekend and even on 4% declines I was freewheeling,sat up on the hoods and still overtaking riders pedalling pretty quickly. 50,52,53 have there place and i use them on my bike for TT. The rest of the time gear down and spin.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Rolling resistance
Drafting effect
Aerodynamics
Mechanical losses in drivetrain
Take your pick, but nothing to do with your weight, unless the laws of physics have changed.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Heavier riders descend faster than lighter riders for less effort-fact. Regarding rolling resistance i was using my training tyres, 40mm G Ones :). The rest of the group 25/23mm road tyres.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Just like steel frames, Brooks saddles, wool baselayers and many other things that are considered ‘old hat’ in the perennial drive to sell you yet more new stuff.
Oh but, they do. They DO! And they will tell you so with remarkable conviction.
I don’t know if it’s coincidence but it appears that the people who need 52×11 to be able to ride downhill also seem to need 34×32 to go up it as well.
— Mungecrundle Big guys and I’m one of them don’t need a 52×11 for downhills. Gravity works just aswell. I was out for a group ride at the weekend and even on 4% declines I was freewheeling,sat up on the hoods and still overtaking riders pedalling pretty quickly. 50,52,53 have there place and i use them on my bike for TT. The rest of the time gear down and spin.— CXR94Di2 Rolling resistance Drafting effect Aerodynamics Mechanical losses in drivetrain Take your pick, but nothing to do with your weight, unless the laws of physics have changed.— Simon E Heavier riders descend faster than lighter riders for less effort-fact. Regarding rolling resistance i was using my training tyres, 40mm G Ones :). The rest of the group 25/23mm road tyres.— CXR94Di2
I’m pretty quickly out of my depth on this stuff but does this explain it – you’re the coin and they’re the feathers? Or maybe those fat tubeless tyres really do ‘roll well’!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zff82hv/revision
PS surely “time remaining before terminal velocity” should be available on Strava Premium?
Duncann wrote:
in theory, heavier riders accelerate at the same rate but will have a higher top speed – given that you can get over 100kph with a 53×11 – you’re going to have to be going some to make good use of it.
I liked triples. I probably
That is, surly, simply a case of knowing how to operate your kit?
From my experience of riding with guys using tripples – they seem to spend ages hunting around for the right gear, and trying to jump the chain across two chain rings at the bottom and top of each climb, where as, on the Compact, its “just one flick and your done”
Must be Mad wrote:
From my experience of riding with guys using tripples – they seem to spend ages hunting around for the right gear, and trying to jump the chain across two chain rings at the bottom and top of each climb, where as, on the Compact, its “just one flick and your done”
— Must be MadInterestingly, the experience I’ve witnessed – and apparently many others who have tried compacts – is the opposite.
On rolling terrain riders with compacts often seem to change chainring and then need multiple shifts on the cassette to find a comfortable cadence. They seem to be cross-chaining on small-small (34×12 or whatever) quite often too rather than moving to the big ring because it’s such a wide jump and would require several downshifts.
Simon E wrote:
I’m with you on this.
I’ve recently moved from 53/39 to 50/34, which has been great for cadence on steeper climbs but on ‘normal’ undulating roads (or where poor corner sightlines make you ease off) I seem to be changing chainring and then fine-tuning the cassette much more often.
It’s not a big deal but it feels more faffy than the old 39t which was the ‘right’ ring most of the time. The middle ring on a road triple would perform a similar function, I imagine.
My triple experience is on a MTB where lots of ring-hopping was required but it was easier than on a compact: the granny was for obviously up; the dinner plate for fast descent; and the middle one for the middle 70ish%. With a compact, it rarely seems the right ring for long.
Must be Mad wrote:
People who do have that problem obviously don’t know how to use their kit at all, wouldn’t make any difference how many chainwheels they have.
Must be Mad wrote:
Surly riders are no more incompetent than any other cyclists. Or are you calling someone grumpy?
<exits on big ring>
Now’t wrong with Triples….
Now’t wrong with Triples…. easy to set up (if you don’t follow the YouTube stuff..lol) and to be fair they have and still do get people into cycling most of the disciplines. Nothing wrong with them on road bikes and many who have them like the option of the “granny” ring if they need to “bail out” while cycling climbs and roads which are in another region than familiar to them. Not eveyone is a racing whippet of 9 stone…. I have both… and tend use the triple for hilly sportives…if you are an old bloke like me who spends most of his time on the tools preparing bikes for others to ride….you will understand that I don’t have the time to be “race fit” and the legs for big geared compacts on 20% climbs….. There is not one size fits all….if there was we wouldn’t have all the Bottom Bracket “standards” as we do….. and why many carbon framed bikes have press fit BB’s and yet Pinarello remain with threaded type… old fashioned..or plain sensible… ?….. same can be said for Triple’s I guess
I’m still riding a tripple on
I’m still riding a tripple on my racing bike, even tough i hardly ever use it: only when the odd 20 percent climb comes along.
Then thing with Doubles is that you have to adapt your gearing for the conditions your riding in:
on the flats a 36 is completely useless, even in a tuff headwind. When i’m bend out of shape a 39 can be quite though to get up the mountains and the +20 climbs a are a real struggle with that, especially +150 km into a sportive.
The thing is i like thight gearing, and since i’m still riding 10 speed that’s not yet easily doable for all conditions with one set of 52×39. with 52×11-25 i’m missing steps between gears
(the 53 is indeed really only for pro’s: 52×11 is already really hard to use in flat conditions on your own)
(but the major reason i’m still rding my tripple is that it still works, and i’m holding out till all the new features become available in a complete package in Ultegra: Disc Brackes, DI2, Sinchronized Shifting etc. I’ the mean time i still have a working groupset and 3 sets of wheels not compatible with 11 speed, i just don’t jump on the band wagon of buying everything new every other year)
I think triples will
I think triples will eventually die out as more and more people are introduced to cycling on doubles both on road bikes and MTBS. Or like myself, many may transfer from mtbing and bring along what we are used to.
Maybe just maybe we’ll be here discussing the death of doubles due to the introduction of 13 cog cassettes on 142 wide axles, or the death of rim brakes….
Give me 500% range with no
Give me 500% range with no energy and cog teeth consuming cross chaining, with decent increments and a hollowtech crank that will cost no more than a Sora groupset does and I will be happy
These are just fads. The
These are just fads. The route back to triples is laid out already.
When I first got a compact with a wide ranging cassette I felt would prefer the smaller jumps between sprokets from a triple with a narrow range cassette. I haven’t used a 1X but I’ve seen videos of off-the-peg bikes that shift up the cassette when pedaling backwards and very bad chainlines that increase drive train loses. That along with tractor tyres and creaky bottom brackets all add up to bikes that are just waiting to be called out as inefficient and high maintenance.
The triple will die when
The triple will die when Shimano stops supporting it. No sign of that yet.
With ever narrower chains,
With ever narrower chains, surely the time of the quadruple is almost upon us. Think of the marketing advantage of being able to put “48 speed” on the promotional material for a new bike equipped with 12 cogs on the back and 4 rings at the front (and the obligatory bluetooth head unit displaying gears remaining before your speed drops below that required to remain upright.)
handlebarcam wrote:
It used to be possible. Obviously didn’t catch on!
They may take our downtube
They may take our downtube shifters, but they’ll never take our triples!
1x is pointless for serious
1x is pointless for serious road riding, although I can see serious benefits for off road use, and for casual riders, many of whom seemingly fail to understand how a triple chainset works, and would be much better off with one less lever on the bars to contend with. Otherwise, the massive gaps in gearing is just unpleasant.
I detest compact chainsets, in both their 50/34 and 52/36 incarnations. The gap between the rings kills your cadence, and the huge gaps between the gears feels clumsy. I ride much more efficiently on my 53/42, switching chainrings much more frequently than on my compact. I use the small ring, rather than trying to force my way up hills in the big ring because the small ring is too small without shifting half way across the cassette (so smooth…).
My ideal race ride would have a modern standard 53/39 for the weight savings of having two rings. For casual rides and steep hills, a 52/42/32 or suchlike would be wonderful, giving a perfectly feasible bottom gear, while still allowing for smooth shifts between chainrings, and enabling a close ratio cassette at the rear – absolutely the best of both worlds.
I’m not just reminiscing about the good old days when bikes were heavy and kit was wrinkly. I’m 17, and grew up on compacts. I would never buy one now, having ridden standards. A standard with an extra granny ring is surely the way to go.
james_from_stoke wrote:
You said it perfectly. Relieved to see a sensible contribution to this thread! You are right, most people don’t understand the benefits of 3 chain rings, evident when they remark such things as ”but there are so many duplicate gears!!” and ”you can get the same range with ‘X’ cassette and a compact” etc….etc…
Some dismiss it on aesthetics alone, and they are not worth the time to talk to (in fact most probably won’t consider it based on aesthetics and ‘image’, the flawed arguments are just icing on the cake for them). Function is beautiful to me, I don’t care how ‘clean’ it looks, if it’s inferior it doesn’t qualify.
Also not an oldie here reminiscing about ‘the good old days’. I’m 19, although I’m often labelled a ‘retro grouch’… Are you on insta or FB? @Swansea_Road_Bikes here.
I dithered a lot before
I dithered a lot before getting a triple to replace the (old, non-compact) double on my bike. Possibly it was the wrong decision, but I haven’t regretted it. Yes, there’s a lot of duplication, but that means I can generally just leave it on the middle ring when commuting, but do have the wider range when wanted.
this is seemingly a problem
this is seemingly a problem for manufacturers because they’d rather cut their production costs down and force the market to bend to their will rather than the market dictating what they want.
when you think how they ensure their new stuff is not backwards compatible or try to, it stinks big time.
Why was SRAM even asked to comment especially with respect to road triples, it’s pretty clear what their position is.
40/42t sprockets, sure it’ll get you up steep terrain but at a cost of massive jumps in between, no thanks, whether touring, ambling with a partner, kids or riding balls out, having the jumps reasonably close together means it’s easier to maintain a comfortable cadence and not find your legs spinning like a whirling dervish or going down to a much slower RPM unless you flick two or three sprockets.
52/36/24 with a 12-30 is my sweetspot in terms of gear range for all occasions, whilst the vogue for many roadies is to go with a 34-32 to get up the hills I still get the impression for many this is still too high a gear especially for longer incIines or very steep roads, you can get another 3% lower with a 33T but then that’s it.
Anything past a 32t and you’re into the mid cage rear mech though some of the new stuff like the ugly 9100 rear d can handle a 32t apparantly, the previous DA9000 could do a 32 if you fiddled with the b screw.
Still once past 32 and because the manufacturers insist on having 11t starting sprockets the gaps are starting to get wider and wider. Sure if things change to 12/13/14 speeds at the back that might ‘solve’ a problem but it creates a shit ton more problems by doing so, not least frames, wheels, chains, gear changers, the cassettes themselves and so on.
I’m sticking with 6703 STIs on my audax, I don’t need 11 speed for it and will use doubles and triples for particular bikes/rides as I see fit, dropping triple out of the equation for road going bikes and even for MTB I think would be a mistake but then the manufacturers can do what they want.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Agree with second point but not am convinced by the idea they are ‘forcing the market’. OEM is a massive proportion of production. Compare the number of new road bike models specced with each configuration.
No manufacturer wants to make 3 variants for each groupset level, when 1 sits around for goodness knows how long and is incompatible with the others – a triple usually requires a different LH shifter and front derailleur. I can’t see many people choosing that when wide range cassettes are all the rage. And when did you last hear someone saying that Dura-Ace with a triple chainset was what they were after? Not exactly emulating the ‘pro’ look now, is it.
Also, there are probably good margins on a 11-42t cassette, which you’ll need to replace rather more often than the chainset.
I think one of the best
I think one of the best advice I got was if you can’t do it on a heavy gear, spin it. Installed a mountain triple on my road bike early ’90’s, paired it with a close ratio freewheel(then), now a cassette, tooth difference no more than 2, never looked back since then and still enjoying my triple.
CaraBao wrote:
Several of the old soaks I ride with on occasions offered the same advice to me when I was riding with a 42t crank and a 11-34 9-speed cassette which was fine for commuting but lacked the range for longer rides in the rolling hills that surround my home city of Bristol. I acquired a triple crankset (an old Ultegra 52/39/20) and front derailleur and haven’t looked back since. The granny gear is brilliant and there are fewer climbs that beat me now though the next time the triple needs replacing I’ll be getting a mtb triple instead.
The ability to mix and match
The ability to mix and match is the best. For commuting (my ride is quite flat) I am current using a 50/38 setup up front. Given that I only seldom go over 50km/h on my commute, I could easily opt for a smaller big ring. What would probably be ideal for my commute is something like a 46/38 or 46/39 setup, coupled with a 12-25 cassette.
I want a good Tripple. end of
I want a good Tripple. end of story.
Both my road bike have tripples so I have close grears for smoth riding. and then a granny gear for when the hills go stuppid. you can’t do that with a double or single. end of story.
I would love a elecronic tripple as it would manage the worst bit of the tripple by fine tweaks of the front derailer as you move at the back. Please some one make a good one (Shimano please).
jthef wrote:
I prefer a triple too. Again,
I prefer a triple too. Again, being older it’s what I’m familiar with so set-up and maintenance isn’t an issue. I do have a double (53/39) on one road bike and have had various singlespeed/double/triple on MTBs.
The one I don’t get though is the fashion for single ring on MTB coupled with a cassette sporting a dinner-plate sized cog. Some say it’s for better ground clearance but the cranks don’t get shorter with a single ring and the vulnerable rear derailleur needed for the dinner plate is practically dragging the ground when in the monster cog. On a downhill bike fair enough but the minute you couple it with that huge cog and associated dangly bits just to be able to ride uphill then the idea is flawed (i.m.o.).
I’m one of those who just
I’m one of those who just likes to ride a bike. Bought a new tourer a couple of years back,lost count of the times I was offered Audax, gravel and other bikes with the so-called compact-double where the gears were just too high, and (on paper) the jumps looked too big.
Triple – a la MTB or hybrid – is right foe me and I suspect a good many others – without having to go for thinner chains etc. that will probable wear out quicker for “normal” cyclists (mine is a 3 x 8 setup)
rock-on Spa Cycles!
Long live the triple!
Long live the triple!
I have three bikes currently in use; the B’Twin on my Trek trainer came with a triple but, from the point of view of my trainer I only use the big ring (so I could replace it with a single ring – but why bother?); the double on my B’Twin Mach CF and the triple on my Panorama DeLuxe World Tourer.
Interestingly, on some of my hillier training routes I’m faster on the Panorama than on the much lighter Mach CF because, as a big bloke, mass really starts to count against you when you get to over a 6% gradient and the touring bike gearing enables me to keep the cadence high.
Similarly, for load carrying, you cannot beat a triple, again because it gives you more flexible options for keeping the cadence high.
Last year I organized an 80 mile round trip from London to Southend (and back) and found a few really tough hills (in Essex!!!). I rode the route many times with friends. Interestingly, despite being the biggest cyclist (in respect of size and mass) I was almost always first up the big inclines because I could use the third ring on the triple and keep up the cadence whereas smaller riders on carbon bikes simply weren’t geared for the hills because they were using 11-23 cassettes. A triple would certainly have helped them out. Eventually they would put a 12-36 cassette on, which helped but the gearing wasn’t as well spaced as the gearing on my tourer.
We are not all speedy boys and girls and, for sure, we sexagenarians (and beyond), who have survived much of what life has yet to throw at the youngsters and who make up a vast cohort of dedicated cyclists may appreciate the benefits of the more flexible offering of the triple for some decades yet.
All that said, I love innovation and, pockets permitting, I’m always happy to try something new.
I like a Westmalle Tripel or
I like a Westmalle Tripel or a Karmeliet Tripel.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Prefer Westmalle’s Dubbel myself – but I can’t ever see myself being tempted by a single. Unless it’s a malt.
Duncann wrote:
How do you feel about a Kasteel Barista Quad? Too much?
AFter years of road racing on
After years of road racing on doubles I switched to triples around 2005 as wanted to ride some big sportives in the Alpes as well as other very hilly rides in UK. Etape de Tour, Marmotte, Spud Riley, White Rose classic etc. A triple with a nice close ratio cassette lets you very easily find a good climbing gear without all the riidiculous jumps in ratio you get with all these modern set-ups. Will never go back. And, BTW, raced a fair amount on my triple equipped bik up until 2010….
Triple easy to set up, not much extra weight in the overall scheme of things, and gives you best gear options all the time.
Stop pandering to the trend setters – stick with what you know works best
For me the big advantage of
For me the big advantage of triple over double is that I can setup to allow 90-95% of my riding on the middle ring, and only change up or down for the steepest uphills and downhills. (And 1x would not give me enough range at the small steps I prefer (but OK for round town).)
I don’t get why people are
I don’t get why people are having trouble setting up a triple crankset.
heck, I’ve just built a frame up from the parts bin with
-an 8-speed 48/38/28 crankset,
-a triple RSX front mech from a 3×7 groupset,
-a Tiagra STI 3×9 LH shifter,
-a SRAM 9-speed chain,
-an 8-speed Sora STI RH shifter and cassette,
and it was a doddle to set up and works perfectly….
I am NOT a pro mechanic either!
I’ve never understood the
I’ve never understood the objection to the big gap between rings on a compact. With STIs, it’s so easy to shift the rear to compensate that switching chainrings just doesn’t bother me. The latest Di2 sychro shift stuff will even do it for you.
Once again, the manufacturers
Once again, the manufacturers do what is best for them, not for the users. I’m a rather heavy cyclist who takes fun climbing mountains. I’m not the youngest one. This last month, I climbed several cols in the Alps, including the Galibier. I ride with one of the last (if not the last) Trek Domane edition with Shimano 105 triple. On several places, I would have been stuck with a compact. I’m glad I had a 30×32 to carry on turning legs. Anyway, even far from mountains, in my local hills or on the flat, I’m 80% of the time on the 39. Only on the 50 in descents or with a strong wind behind me. A compact wouldn’t fit me at all, and I’m scared for the day I’ll have to change.
All my road bikes have had
All my road bikes have had double chainsets – in the past, even I’ve rejected buying a road bike (Felt something or other, years ago) as it had a triple chainset (shop wouldn’t swap it). I’ve done some very hilly rides on a 53/39 chainset by swapping the usual cassette for an 11-32 mountain bike cassette, which worked very well, but does mean you get bigger jumps between the gears.
For that reason alone, I’m not convinced by the 1x arguments for road bikes.
My newest road bike has a compact chainset, which I like, although it lacks that top speed on big, fast downhills.
My mountain bike has a triple and is currently being turned into a touring bike for some big hills, so that’s staying.
Although I’m not quite buying into the whole 1x thing off road, either, it does seem to be becoming the standard on my local trails, where I rarely change out of the big ring at the front, as the hills are so short and can be attacked for a short burst.
If we think from the rider’s
If we think from the rider’s perspective, and not the manufacturer’s, the goal is to have a range of gearing that is suitable for the terrain encountered, with jumps between the gears that are evenly spaced and small enough to allow the rider to keep a fairly steady cadence. The ideal would be an inifinitely variable, automatically shifting transmission with an override that allows the rider to alter its behavior, lightweight enough that there is no weight penalty over the current designs. Oh, and it should be at least as reliable as current designs, and have no significant increased cost, as well. Of course, these systems do not exist, yet.
When we had six and seven speed freewheels, with the smallest cogs fixed at 12, 13 or 14 teeth, the variable was the largest cog and the constraint was the amount of difference between adjacent cogs. Too wide, and it didn’t meet the “small change in gearing” goal. The extra chainring of a triple helped here, as one could get a nice, low gear with, say, a 28 or 30-tooth inner ring and a 26 or 28-tooth cog. Those loading up their touring bikes, climbing ultra-steep hills, or just with out-of-condition legs could push this much lower with minimal changes. While some weenies (I was one) calculated the ratio of each combination and selected individual rings and cogs to make the jumps between gears as evenly as possible while getting the desired range (remember “half-step-plus-granny?), and some even taped miniature gear charts to their handlebars, this attention to gearing detail missed the big point of how people actually ride multiple chainring bikes.
One quickly learns that perfect gear combination is an elusive thing, at least in an undulating state like Vermont. Brifters, ramped cogs, and 8 to 11-spd cassettes have spoiled us by leading us into a riding style in which we’re shifting every few seconds at times to grab a better gear for the changing terrain. With a triple, you pick the ring by the current general state of things–if trending upward you’ll likely be in the middle ring, shifting around in the back. If the road levels out or trends downward, it’s a shift to the big ring, accompanied by a single shift in the opposite direction in the rear, and you’re back to working the right sfifter. Dramatic changes in road pitch might complicate things a bit, but that’s where experience kicks in. The inner ring of a triple is just there for the steepest climbs, and only used with the largest three or four cogs.
Yes, there’s overlap with a triple, but it doesn’t matter because that’s not the way you ride it. With a 3 x 9 setup, you are probably only using 20 or so of the 27 possible combinations, and some of those 20 are close enough to be duplicates, but this is invisible to the rider, in practice, and although the number of useless combinations is greater, the number you actually use are pretty close to what you’d get out of most 2 x 11 setups. Weight penalty is not as much as one might think. The BB spindle is a few mm longer, there’s the extra ring and bolts, a few grams in making the crank beefier to mount that ring and a few extra grams in the derailleur cage, but these are partially offset by the ability to run a closer range cassette and slightly shorter chain. You really need to go 1 x 11 to get any real weight savings while matching the range of a triple, because you lose a ring or two, the entire front derailleur, its cable, and the left brifter reverts to a simple brake lever. This more than offsets the jump in the size of the largest cogs on the cassette.
The problem with compact cranks is the huge jump between the chainrings, which complicates the shifting, as you need to shift at least two cogs in the rear when you shift the front. I had a bike setup with a 12 – 23 cassette and 34 – 50 compact and found it a total pain, as I was constantly making the decidedly unsnappy chainring shift. Moving to a 26 in the rear didn’t help a lot. These compact setups work best when the range on the cassette is large enough to reduce front shifts, such as with a 32-tooth cog, but this then requires a lot of cogs, or the jumps between gears become too great.
What’s driving the abandonment of the triple is the move to 10 and 11-spd cassettes, and this is primarily driven by industry marketing. For most riders, a 10-spd cassette with 11 and 12-tooth cogs is effetively an 8-speed, even when paired with a 50-tooth chainring. To gain these unneeded cogs, the rider gives up a bit of durability, reliability, and ease of maintenance, while incurring increased cost. While most industry folks see 9-speed cassettes as being merely a brief transition between the 8 and 10-speed eras, I would argue that it might just be the ideal number of cogs for 130mm spacing, and thus for modern bike designs. Remember, it’s tough to do much with rear spacing and not impact chainline and thus Q-factor.
The savior for compact gearing will likely be electronic shifting, especially when it handles those transition shifts in its software algorithms. For those of use sticking with mechanical systems, and who ride the big hills, the 3 x 9 triple might just be the ideal system long after the manufacturers scrap the equipment to make them.
I have a 10 year old
I have a 10 year old Cannondale Synapse 5 with a 50/38/30 triple. Never had a problem with the gears, regarding maintenance. I use the 38 about 90 % of the time, the 30 gear about 10 % , the 50 almost never. We have hills in Southern California, nothing like the hills and mountains in Europe, but hills nonetheless. I need my triple. I’m not a skinny person.
Test rode a 2018 Specialized Roubaix Sport in the dealer parking lot. I wasn’t able to test climb with the Roubaix, just ride in the parking lot under the watchful eye of the bike shop employee, but I can tell the smallest gear isn’t easy enough for the hills I do. If the 2018 Roubaix had a triple, I probably would have bought it. I didn’t try the Trek Domane, no dealer near me has a Domane in stock to look at.
I bike with a group most Saturdays or Sundays for 3 – 4 hours. Not at all hardcore, which is fine by me.
Triples arent dead yet, with
Triples arent dead yet, with the versatility of Di2 they live on.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
I saw a package that had both XT Di2 and the older 6870 drop bar shifters plus XT derailleurs, screen, battery etc. all new and a very good price but it’s only a 2x. I did look at the XTR triple but had not seen anyone do what you’ve done with the bigger ring which would be a must for me, there’s no way I could be limited to 40×11.
The thing I don’t get is why one unit cannot do any chainring setup and you need specific shifters, also not being able to use a road front and an MTB rear, particularly when it’s simply software that tells the units how much to shift.
I’d love to get an XTR Di2 front/XT rear with drops or flats but I really can’t cost justify it, not when I can simply use a 5700/6700 left with an 11 speed right. Running a 50/52-36-24 with a 12-30/32 and the std 6800 GS makes it the sensible/cheaper option whilst still being a very good/easy shifting system.
If only SRAM had triple capability, I think I would prefer the battery in with the derailleurs and the top of the bar mounted ‘blips’ seem to be better than shimano too.
Too many riders are to vain
Too many riders are to vain to ride with a triple, they’ve not a man unless they’re on a double.
Not my observation, I read in another thread. There’s some truth to it.
This yearye rode with 33 chainring and 34 top sprocket in the Pyrenees on a compact, but I’m getting older, so I may go back to the triple I started with, when I first went to the Pyrenees in 2009. I certainly wasn’t spinning up the climbs like I was in 2009.
I’m no athlete, but I’m not vain enough to worry about riding a triple, I certainly passed other macho riders on their doubles 🙂 I live in the flat lands, and no matter how much training I put in, the mountains will always be hard.
I’ve got a 48/32 Praxis chainring to use next time, and if I struggle on that, I’ve got a triple Ultegra shifter in the parts locker.
After that it’s going to be an ebike, I don’t want to stop cycling in the mountains, as I started doing this too late in life
“Within Shimano’s current
“Within Shimano’s current road line up triple chainsets are more common at Tiagra level and below.”
Maybe that’s because you only offer a triple in Tiagra and below, so that point becomes irrelevant as proof that people don’t want it. If you said that there wasn’t the call for it when you did still offer it on 105 then fair enough, but you are using your own product availability to justify future availability, which is a ludicrous position to take.
Having recently completed my
Having recently completed my first LEJOG on an 11 – 32 cassette with a 26 single front chainring setup i dont get what double chainsets are for never mind triples …
However;
If you want a quality triple set up go to SPA Cycles of Harrogate.
landsurfer74 wrote:
You did LEJOG with a top gear of 26×11?
I’ll tell you what doubles are for – going faster than 18mph without spinning your legs off.
landsurfer74 wrote:
I have very mixed feelings about one by. I keep thinking it’s a silly idea but then I remeber that the first few thousand miles I did when I got back into cycling 6 years ago was my old Dave Yates MTB which I set up one by. With my road bikes (with 11-28 cassettes), I never, EVER use the big ring so effectively, they’re all one by as well.
Maybe it is a good idea…
.
Last time I had a triple on a
Last time I had a triple on a road bike was about 35 years ago. I think it was a red Rayleigh. Back then it probably had 5, possibly 6 speed.
I think the point raised in previous posts about modern 9 speed+ and the wider range with reasonable increments being the reason for a triple being effectively obsolete for more riders in more applications is the nub of the matter.
Round my way, N Herts, even the small ring is pretty much vestigial as there are few hills or sustained climbs.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I also live in N.Herts, there are hills/inclines I will use my 24 ring on, going up to Western from Baldock is 14% in places, from off the Gravely road to Western it’s not exactly flat either, riding up to Preston village is also fairly steep. We are not all the same so what for some may seem easy/doable with x, that isn’t going to be suitable or even going to work at all for another person.
Removing the option of the higher end triple by Shimano and no 11 speed plus Campag stopping production of triples since 2012/13 is forcing cyclists to choose a lower quality, poorer system than they want and using more costly replacement systems with dustbin lid cassettes and far bigger jumps in the ratios. As I said on another thread, even a 3×8 has closer ratios in the middle gears even using a 24/39 inner/middle ring with a 11-28 than an 11 speed compact with a 11-40
9 speed never made triples obselete, that was only ever in the minds of those that are ignorant to other bicyclists needs.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I also live in N.Herts, there are hills/inclines I will use my 24 ring on, going up to Western from Baldock is 14% in places— Mungecrundle
Weston Hills is one of my favourite routes. Out to Baldock via Ashwell, then back to Royston via Hatch Lane up to Weston then back through Sandon and Therfield. Some nice short hill climbs and usually light on traffic.
Dead? Dormant at best but
Dead? Dormant at best but the reason is the manufacturers not making them.
Very first post. “a compact chain-set is lighter, more efficient, easier to set up and maintain and should get you up most things with an appropriate cassette”
Either wrong or irrelevant.
Weight. Not an issue. For a start most riders could drop a few pounds. Much more effective than woorying about a few grams. Fat gits who worry about their bike weights are daft or posers.
Efficient.Ho, ho ho. Think about the crappy chain lines and the horrible gappy gears.
Easy to set up? Its a front mech FFS! As easy as a knife and fork. (although modern youth can’t do that either)
A front mech needs no maintainece to speak of. A cable is used on a triple so just where is the added difficulty?
Appropriate cassette? Oh a nice big rear sprocket. Well there is much of yoour lost weight back to start with and you still get the whopping great gaps.
Of course a triple is not for everyone but it’s the only thing that works well in the right circumstance. However as always the market is governed by the manufacturer (Fair enough, thats up to them), and the current trend for every newbie and fat knacker to think they are off to ride the Tour.
Anyone who hauls any loads
Anyone who hauls any loads and wants to be able to push along at a reasonable speed unloaded will want a triple. That’s a whole bunch of utility/touring bikes there. I wouldn’t put a triple on my cyclocross/road/adv**ture (can’t quite say it) bike but wouldn’t have it any other way on my tourer/utility/commuter/everything-else-except-MTB bike. Sugino rule! 48-38-28 up front 11-30 out back works nicely for me. As age progresses will very likely drop some teeth on the inner ring for the bigger hills loaded up, but will try to avoid adding any at the back.
Having failed to get up
Having failed to get up Hardnott Pass with 11-32 and a 50/34 compact I wish I had a triple. You don’t look “pro” when you’re pushing!
If I was touring or injured
If I was touring or injured or a weaker hill climber then I’ll happily get a triple chain set as long as the front mech was smooth.
Enjoyed 1x but too many large steps but great for CX and adventure gravel bikes.
The double compact on my road bike is great but so was my 53-39 with 12-28.
Struggled with 53/39 with 11-23!
For most fat middle aged
For most of us fat middle aged riders a triple is still a good choice, the extra few hundred grams makes no reall difference in the real world compared to 2x.
My current favourite bike, and commuter is my 1972 Falcon with 3 x 9 speed set up. chainset is 50-40-30 stronglight and front mech is controlled by Deore friction shifter – I love it!
A couple of years ago I gave
A couple of years ago I gave up on the macho nonsense, because I had realised that when I actually needed the granny it would not shift as I had started to grind, and to get on the granny you need to be spinning, so now I try to shift much earlier, before I really need it. Is the triple dead, not on my bikes. Rohloffing the new one, or trying to, but I will be keeping the triples going.
Shimano seem particularly
Shimano seem particularly mixed up here. They only offer triple on the low-end chainsets favoured by recreational riders, then they tout the benefits of steady cadence – I doubt the typical Tiagra rider cruising around level urban bike paths has any interest in efficient cadence.
Personally I still have a triple on my aging MTB but there’s so much overlap I mostly ride it as a double, riding the outer on the commute to the trails, then going straight from the outer to the inner when I hit the big climbs.
Every year this story gets
Every year this story gets recycled, and every year the same arguments are trotted out, and no-one looks at it from the perspective of the manufacturer.
Manufacturers hate triples because they have more components than doubles, and doubles have more components than 1x. Telling you the thing with less components that is cheaper to make is high tech and the great new thing is manufacturer nirvana. Getting cyclists to agree with you and argue about why the expensive to make stuff is bad is just the most amazing marketing ever.
I have two triples – my tourer and a Ridley i got cheap in the sales because it was a Sora triple and they’re just not cool any more. From the bottom of my heart I thank you all, because that was a bargain of the best kind…
I also have a road bike I use for TTs with a 53/39, and another road bike with a 50/34 that I use for the turbo and larking about. As my bikes get upgraded I suspect I’ll be the guy lurking round the LBS looking to see what kit is unfashionable, and therefore cheap, but still perfectly serviceable….
exilegareth wrote:
Surely from the point of view of the manufacturer, Shimano for example, they have presumably done some market research that tells them the market for people willing to spend several £100s on Ultegra or Dura Ace triple chainrings for their cargo bike / commuter / winter nail / middle aged crisis – return to biking and frankly a little unfit bike is not big enough to justify the investment in those products.
I realy like triple chainsets
I realy like triple chainsets and would miss the range of easy gears that kept my legs spinning when it all goes very steep.
Me: Older cyclist, semi
Me: Older cyclist, semi-retired bike mechanic/retailer with 30 years experience.
Most of my bikes have doubles (52/42 or 52/39) which are fine for flats, rolling hills or bridges in my area. My “take it with me” bike is a triple. In my area, west central Florida, 34/50 gearing is not useful, especially in group rides. Often I see riders in the 34/12 or the 50/28 combinations. Usually I hear them first. I call them future customers. I recently replaced two 50t chainrings because of chain line wear. Would have done one more, but can’t find a Shimano 6750 50t ring.
When I ride in very hilly areas I appreciate my triple. It allowes me to run a tighter cassette, 12/23, with closer gear ratios to more easily maintain my desired spin.
About 3 years ago six of my customers had their cranks changed to compact for a tough ride in Georgia (USA). The ones who did not change back to standard gearing all ended up replacing the 34t with a 38t ring.
Ah yeah but, Road CC have
Ah yeah but, Road CC have already spunked themselves over the Rotor 13 speed 1x as the solution to all gear ratios. Frankliy it’s yet more waffle, it’s still aimed at pro racers and to get the lower ranges that mere mortals require means you have to go with a cassette that still has huge jumps between the ratios, this was one of the reasons why Aqua blue hated it (as well as the constant mechanicals they were having).
A 10-39 cassette with a 42T gives you a gain ratio of 8.87 – 2.27, a 50/34 with 11-32 gives you 9.6 – 2.24, so your top end is seriously restricted. Okay, you go to a bigger ring, a 46 for example, yup you made the top end similar and the bottom end 2.11 so slightly lower, but now you’ve got even bigger jumps between the ratios because you had to get the 10-46 cassette! Oh and you still need to buy new frame and wheels.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
So is that going to be the prefered lubrication and, if that is the case, will there be a wet or dry solution?
Triple crank are not dead, as
Triple crank are not dead, as long as Shimano keep making the XTR DI2 Triple front derailleur. Goes off to buy a spare 🙂
Don’t really see how you’re
Don’t really see how you’re restricted by a 50t unless you’re REALLY quite fast on the flats. 50×11 at 90rpm is 32mph!
Lets’s be realistic, there’s a lot of people cycling for whom 17mph avg over a couple of hours is a good ride. Not everyone is smashing out time trial speeds.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I can hit 32mph on a short 2%-3% decline on my way to the shops if I go the long way round on the main through road, the short route to the shops has a 7% literally 400m from my front door which I hit 32mph in the dicky dark and normally around 37ish during daylight hours, it’s also the route to the library and usually the route I go to start off a ride going Northwards into the countryside. There’s plenty of short hills around here that means you can use the big dog often and I hate cross chaining.
I like giving it the beans as much as I can (whilst I still can!) and whilst I have the distinct disadvantage of weight and a few more years on the clock so need the lower gears around the 20″ mark, I also like having bigger gears so that I don’t have to spin like a washing machine if I do get onto a slope I can attack. I remember spinning out in France a few years ago on my hybrid whilst on a short visit to friends in Chamonix, 48×12 was my biggest gear then and my legs were going like the clappers before tucking in and going through a badly lit tunnel at circa 46mph which was a bit of a muscle clencher.
The thing is though, there’s very few rides I will be able to maintain a 17mph v. but I will use a 50×11 relatively frequently even here in Hertfordshire. Having a triple for me is the best of all worlds, I do have a double on my carbon racer but by god it’s hard work on the steeper stuff, or even a somewhat ‘easy’ gradient when I’m knackered or my illness means I’m washed out before I even get on the saddle.
It’s only because it’s significantly lighter than my audax/touring/winter racer which has a triple, has higher end kit and the best tyres and wheels I can afford that just about enables me to stick with the gearing I have unlesss I went to using a much wider cassette. I would hate to, but if it comes to it I will fit a triple to it if it means I can get the enjoyment of using a decent frame and still lug myself over the hills. Problem is there are no decent triples around from the big three players and the Shimano MTB triples are ugly if not functional.
Currently putting together my own road triple using a Sugino plus TA rings and a titanium BB.
Ride what you want.
Ride what you want.
I’ve ridden in a pretty mountainous region on a 53/39 and 28 at the rear without problems, except Bola del Mundo.
Mountain biked (XC) with a double and done the same routes on a 32/16 singlespeed.
I think there will always be a need for triples.
They’re not for me, but hey!
don simon fbpe wrote:
How much do you weigh? I bet it’s quite light. No way a +90kg rider can manage a decent cadence up mountains, same for older riders in general
CXR94Di2 wrote:
At that time I was 40-45 yrs old and weighed 80-85kg, at around 45 yrs I’d dropped to 70-75kg. the bike was a 1999 bike too, so not a weight weenie.
don simon fbpe wrote:
You have made your point, the Bola at 21.8km @ 6.2% average is a decent climb, not the worst but a fair test and you suggested it was a struggle with 39*28.
Ive done longer, 21 miles, sometimes steeper climbs, but were able to spin@ 86rpm ave, to save my legs for later on. I weigh 95KG
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Bola del Mundo is actually the final 3-4km, which is a struggle on 39/28, the rest was run of the mill for that area. There are three approaches and as I lived off the M-604, I came from the Rascafria side, so a slightly different climb.
I am pleased that you’ve done longer and harder climbs. The point being that people can use whatever gearing suits them and gets them out on a bike, what suits one person isn’t a rule and there in no single sensible option. If triples help people get into cycling, and climbing, that allows them to upgrade as they get fitter and strong, then fantastic.
I’m not arguing everyone has
I’m not arguing everyone has to get a triple crank, you can achieve similar ratios on the easy end of gearing with MTB crankset double. Most folk don’t need 48t or above chainring, a 46t/44t is more than adequate. I do have a 48t but it’s a little overkill. I can push the speed over 50+ mph but that is with a very high cadence 140rpm. Generally most folk are looking for easier gearing to make hills easier, but either through embarrassment, ignorance or bloody minded won’t consider anything other than standard, mid or compact groupsets.
Some people seem not able to
Some people seem not able to understand why others want a triple. Low gears to get up long climbs are readily available right up to the top groups. The problem is that the top groups do not offer this low gearing with some high gears. I don’t care how many people tell me and everybody else that we don’t need 48-52/11 I want those high gears to be there just for the few occasions when I can use them.
XTR has now reduced the big chainring to 38T which would give me 39kph at a 90 cadence (210cm wheel circ.). Totally inadequate. When I pass cars going down mountains I want to be able to pedal when I do it and not be at a cadence that has me coming off the saddle.
There are no big mountains where I live but there are a couple of longer descents where I can hit 75kph so I want to pedal towards that as long as I can. Simples.
XTR has now reduced the big
XTR has now reduced the big chainring to 38T which would give me 39kph at a 90 cadence (210cm wheel circ.)
Shimano spec the crankset max chainring @40T. This is hugely under-rated. I am using a 48T outer chainring down to a 26 inner ring and there is no rubbing on either ring. I could probably got a 50 in if I had gone with 50/34 but I wanted the huge gearing range a triple offers.
A 52*11 combo @ 90rpm gives 33mph. I, when coming down a steep hill will invariably freewheel above 30mph, but to push 50+mph requires a huge amount of power and cadence 140rpm, which defeats the opportunity to recover. Maybe in a race scenario its useful.
If your thing it to pedal like crazy downhill, so be it
CXR94Di2 wrote:
will the XTR triple Di2 front mech only work with a Shimano MTB triple chainset, IF I was to go for Electronic I’d like to use something other than the big S offerings. Can you programme the shifters to do road triple spacing or is it set in stone for MTB spacing and specifically Shimano MTB chainsets only?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
It would be best to check the width and spacing of a crankset. You could always use the XTR Deore spindle and source different ring to fit . You cant trim the steps on each change, but can slightly alter the end stops.
On my installation, I removed about 0.5-1mm from the bottom bracket spacer in the drive side to position the crankset perfectly. Then chain doesnt rub at all. I also employ syncro shift to keep the chain as straight as possible, whilst getting the benefit of next ratio incriments
XTR has now reduced the big
XTR has now reduced the big chainring to 38T which would give me 39kph at a 90 cadence (210cm wheel circ.)
Shimano spec the crankset max chainring @40T. This is hugely under-rated. I am using a 48T outer chainring down to a 26 inner ring and there is no rubbing on either ring. I could probably got a 50 in if I had gone with 50/34 but I wanted the huge gearing range a triple offers.
A 52*11 combo @ 90rpm gives 33mph. I, when coming down a steep hill will invariably freewheel above 30mph, but to push 50+mph requires a huge amount of power and cadence 140rpm, which defeats the opportunity to recover. Maybe in a race scenario its useful.
If your thing it to pedal like crazy downhill, so be it
CXR94Di2,
CXR94Di2,
I think I we pretty much agree. I may have just created the impression that I pedal to 50mph. I don’t and can’t. Around 45mph is my pedalling max. and I can’t hold that for long, so it becomes a case of getting down low.
If I decide to get a new touring bike then I guess it will end up being with a 48 like your Tripster.
‘Death’ – Really should be
‘Death’ – Really should be called forced extinction by companies that are trying to shape the market. I’m still running used components from 8+ years ago, so suck it, ‘trendsetters’.
road.cc – if we started a drinking game of having a glass of wine every time this article is ‘released’ we would become serious alcoholics. Just a thought. 🙂
paradyzer wrote:
Drink!
vonhelmet wrote:
Feck!
vonhelmet wrote:
Feck!
maviczap wrote:
road.cc – if we started a drinking game of having a glass of wine every time this article is ‘released’ we would become serious alcoholics. Just a thought. 🙂
— maviczapDrink!— vonhelmet Feck!— paradyzer
Arse!
Triple chainrings still
Triple chainrings still needed for Tandems, which both go faster on the flat/downhill and slower uphill. We run 54/44/30 chainrings with 11-34 cassette on our tandem, and on a slight downhill we can easily wind out the 54-11, whereas at the other end of the scale we occasionally find a steep hill where the 30-34 is not really low enough.
NickJP wrote:
I call wind out being over 140rpm, 54-11 ratio would be @140rpm, 54mph
I can understand the easy gearing not being enough and I run a 26t triple inner ring with either 32 or 40 tooth cassette depending on what Im doing.
I tried twice with compacts,
I tried twice with compacts, gave up after a couple of months. I found the gear run on them appalling. I’ve settled on Campag triples for my main rides, with double on race bike and summer bike. Rest of the time it’s a 53/42/30 or 53/39/30 triple, with a 12-25 or 12-27 9 spd rear. Gives me a perfect doubld eset up with a granny. Fabulous for getting me up Scottish hills.
I used to ride a 53×39 by 12-23/5 when I lived in Herts, but after moving up here to Scotland, foud that a bit challenging.
I’ve bought 3 compact
I’ve bought 3 compact chainsets, eBayed all of them within 6 months. Gear runs were rubbish, you basically had to cross chain them to make them usable. In the meantime, I bought a cheap Campag Triple to see how it went. Fabulous. I now run a 53/39 and 12-26 arrangement, with the bonus of a 30×12-26 if I get tired / stuck. As I still run Campag’s 9 speed gearsets, I can swap between double and triple without making major changes. Just bough t a 2nd spare chainset from eBay, with my 4 spare rear derailleurs, 3 spare front derailleurs, 5 spare “proper” BBs (Square Taper) in Italian and British threads, I’m set for the medium term future. Having ridden double all my life (except when I was 10, when I had a 1X (utter pish btw)), the Triple makes a lot of sense in my late 50s. Even toyed with converting the TT bike to run one for those late season hilly TTs.
Bigfoz wrote:
Yes, that’s pretty much how I use mine. 99% of the time, I run it as a double 39/52, with 12-26 7 speed on the back, but if I encounter a real beast of a hill, I’ve got a 30 tooth emergency ring. Most of the time it might as well not be there, but I’m always glad to find it! The jump between compact chainrings is just too big for my liking.
For those who complain about
For those who complain about it being difficult to set up a triple front derailleur; they should upsklill and learn to do it correctly.
As for triple chainsets; Spa Cycles still sell ’em in abundance.
I can’t get on with compact
I can’t get on with compact chainsets. My daily ride (used for twenty miles of hilly commuting as well as longer rides at weekends) is fitted with a 30-39-52 chainset and a 7 speed 12-26 on the back; even though I rarely use the smallest chainring it’s nice to know it’s there for emergencies. I also own a Ribble winter bike which arrived fitted with a 34-50 compact: that lasted for 40 miles before I changed the stupidly small inner chainring for a 40 tooth one. The jump between chainrings is just too big and I found I was dropping down into the small ring and suddenly spinning like a food mixer.
Hello old friend…
Hello old friend…
Mine are still going strong.
And they are on 26inch rim brake mountain bikes. One with square taper bb, and cantilevers.
The only reason to adopt a
The only reason to adopt a double crankset is to access to hydraulic disc brakes. As a cycle-tourist I need lower gears, I mean 22 front/36 rear or equivalent, so a double 22/38 crankset paired to an 11-36 cassette will be fine on 9 or 10-speed setups.
Wider cassettes may help on a 2×11 setup, especially those with XD drive and 10-42 or 9-42 ratios, this allows you to pair your wide-range cassette to a 26/42 crankset and achieve a better “cruise speed”, but let’s be honest, when you’re climbing on a fully loaded bike is all about lower gears.