Why have a triple?

[Brucey]

Each to their own, but I have no interest in using a triple. I like the shape and action of SRAM shifters....

sounds like the cart is maybe leading the horse to me.... so if SRAM were to offer a triple shifter, you wouldn't be tempted? I would; I find the massive doubleshift in a double setup a needless annoyance, easily cured with an additional chainring.

If you ask why have a double instead of a triple, there are only a few reasons

1) simplicity
2) weight
3) available equipment

The first two are not compelling reasons by themselves (in fact they are red herrings) and the last of these means you are indeed being led by the nose, IMHO.

cheers

[Brucey]

the big sprockets don't wear out (if you are vaguely sensible)

and live somewhere flat. My big sprockets always wear out even with a 26t inner ring.

if your several hardened steel sprockets wear out before your one soft aluminium chainring, there is something very wrong indeed.

How often do you change your chain?

cheers

[Mick F]

Rolling diameter of my rear 700c 23mm Rubino Pro Slick is 26.2mm at circa 120psi

for that to be the case the tyre must stand above the rim by about 20mm, which seems relatively little to me.

The tyre sits at 23mm above the rim, but will be less when I'm riding of course.
I measured the rolling circumference in the hall sitting on and rolling forwards. I also had a Garmin 705 with a speed/cadence unit that among other things calculates the rolling circumference of the rear wheel. The figures agreed.

....If I were to want to spend more dosh on my bikes, the triples would be sold and I'd buy doubles and wider cassettes. I don't agree about all this guff about steps and lack of gears between such and such. You pick a cassette with a few a gaps as you can get with due regard to the total range you want.

Give me a double system with a bottom gear of about 20" or so, and a top gear of 115" or so....

Regarding your assertion that it is only money that is stopping you from ditching the triples and going to doubles, I'd ask with what object are you even considering such a move? Saving 100g weight?

Absolutely nothing to do with weight. Within reason, I care not a jot about it.

It's to do with simplicity. Single 11sp sounds great to me, but the mechanic in me says that that's a step too far.
Double is the way forward.

[anniesboy]

I am often asked by non cyclists "how many gears" has my tandem got?

My answer is, Its not the gears but the engines sizes that matters

[Mick F]

Yes.
Utterly agree!

I have ninety of the things on my Moulton, but I only have them so I can have a decent range. There's no way on earth that I could use them all. I could manage with 10 or 20 perhaps, even round here.

[pwa]

I'm happy with my triples because, in my hands at least, they work with no fuss, give me a great range of gears, and I can find the right gear easily and without thought. Nowt worth changing therefore.

But if someone else gets all the above from a different arrangement, great. What does bother me a bit is people constantly changing their equipment in the (I think) mistaken belief that some shiny new stuff will make their cycling much better than their old stuff. That may hold true for people who haven't been cycling long, but for those of us with decades of cycling behind us our ideal bike, or something very close to it, is already parked in the garage.

[Brucey]

Rolling diameter of my rear 700c 23mm Rubino Pro Slick is 26.2mm at circa 120psi

for that to be the case the tyre must stand above the rim by about 20mm, which seems relatively little to me.

The tyre sits at 23mm above the rim, but will be less when I'm riding of course.
I measured the rolling circumference in the hall sitting on and rolling forwards. I also had a Garmin 705 with a speed/cadence unit that among other things calculates the rolling circumference of the rear wheel. The figures agreed.

that is interesting and perhaps betrays the nature of what is happening in a bias-belted tyre (rather than a radial tyre). The bias-belted tyre must be compressing lengthwise (and/or slipping lengthwise) within the contact patch for the rolling diameter to come out smaller than the actual diameter. By contrast, with radial car tyres this does not happen; the tread rolls out the same length almost regardless of tyre pressure because the tread belt cannot easily change in length (it works almost like a tank track).

....It's to do with simplicity.....

as I mentioned above it is something of a red herring; simple to look at, or simple to use? With a double you have a choice of a (small) sprocket shift or a (large) chainring shift at any moment. If you choose the latter a double-shift of some kind is usually required. With a triple you have a further choice of chainring, which can avoid a messy double shift. If anything triple setups can be simpler to use than doubles because of this.

BTW if we are talking money and longevity, triples have it over (modern) doubles because you can get the range and intervals you want using a triple that uses inexpensive and hardwearing 7,8,9s stuff (in sensible large sizes that help efficiency and wear rate) rather than relatively short-lived, expensive 10/11s stuff, where you are backed into using smaller chainrings and sprockets in order to get the range required for touring.

cheers

[meic]

the big sprockets don't wear out (if you are vaguely sensible)

and live somewhere flat. My big sprockets always wear out even with a 26t inner ring.

if your several hardened steel sprockets wear out before your one soft aluminium chainring, there is something very wrong indeed.

How often do you change your chain?

cheers

On one bike the inner chainring is stainless steel. But on the other bike it is hardened 7000 series.
The chainring has the advantage that it isnt subject to gear changes under load* as often and it starts off with a profile that isnt "preworn" for easy shifting. To now the inner ring gets changed as frequently as the cassettes do and has even been dressed to get that far.

The chain which gets changed very frequently is the same chain which is on the smaller sprockets and chainrings, so even if they were worn (which they are not) they wouldn't wear out the larger sprockets above others.

It is a simple matter of spending most of my time (and sweating the most) while grinding up hills in those gears.

*just a matter of keeping a bike moving at 3mph up a hill, not fancy out of the saddle stuff.

[gloomyandy]

sounds like the cart is maybe leading the horse to me.... so if SRAM were to offer a triple shifter, you wouldn't be tempted? I would; I find the massive doubleshift in a double setup a needless annoyance, easily cured with an additional chainring.

But they don't make a triple (with road shifters) and are unlikely to ever make one now. Even if they did make one I doubt if I would use it, I've never had one that doesn't have chainrub on some gear combinations (which annoys me) and I don't see the need. The ergonomics of how the shifters feel and work are way more important to me than than some jump in gearing which happens very infrequently. I don't change chainrings very often and when I do adjusting the rear at the same time is easy, so why would that bother me?

[Mick F]

Brucey;
You have lost me there completely.

The tyres are 23mm wide and are effectively "circular" as they are 23mm above the rims.
When I sit on the bike, the rear tyre squishes lower under my weight maybe 2mm(?), so the effective diameter is smaller. The front tyre depresses less of course as there's very little weight on it.

Doubles are simpler in use than triples, or they have always been with me. I've spent thousands and thousands of miles, and years and years of miles using a double. It was only when I modernised my Mercian in late 2004 to 9sp Ergo when I fitted a triple ............. and I only did that because I went fully Campag and the only cassettes they did then had a max sprocket of 26t if I remember correctly. Latterly, they brought out a 30t cassette in 10sp - which I'm using now.

If they'd have done 32t or 34t in 9sp or 10sp cassettes, I could well have stayed with my double Stronglight 99.

[LuckyLuke]

Hi folks, it's triples all round for me on derailleur bikes:
3x triples on 3 bikes;
Audax style bike, 700 x 30 tyres, 9 speed 46, 36, 24 & 11-30 shimano cassette.
Audax style bike, 650b x 42 tyres, 8 speed 46, 36, 24 & custom 13-30 shimano cassette, or 9spd custom 13-34 shimano cassette.
Tourer, 700 x 37 tyres, 9 speed 44, 34, 24 & custom 13-34 shimano cassette.
All L/H shifters are non indexed; bar ends, DT or old Campag Ergos.

An 11-30 cassette is unusual for me, it's a necessity to stop the chain rubbing on the seat stay on that particular bike. Usually I go for custom cassettes based on a shimano 8 speed 13-26 cassette, modified to:
13,15,17,19,21,23,26,30 8spd or
13,15,17,19,21,23,26,30,34 9spd.
I'm not a powerful rider and like (need) low gears.

I'm a spinner and like smallish gaps between the cassette sprockets, and preferably no more than 10-12 teeth gaps on the chainrings. I like having a well set up triple with the middle ring and middle of the cassette as the 'baseline' cruising gear, with plenty of scope to shift up and down the cassette as required, and then up or down the chainrings. With doubles, a cruising gear in the middle of the cassette and on the big ring was often too high for me.

I've tried various doubles over the years:
53,39 was geared too high.
50,34 & 48,34 compacts gave too much of a jump when shifting between chainrings.
46,34 & 44,34 compacts were better, with custom 9 speed 13-34 cassettes, but not low enough for me.
Alpine doubles (TA cranks) with 46,30 & 42,26 had too big jumps between rings.
Alpine doubles with 42,30 & 8 or 9 speed 11-30. Not bad (for me) as doubles go, but I still couldn't get the low gears I need, and not my favorite gaps between cassette sprockets. I tried 11-34 9 speed but couldn't get it to shift ok.

So, now it's doubles for gin and tonics only

Best wishes,

Luke

[reohn2]

....Yes the 12-32 may give smaller steps on a triple than an 11-32 on a double but the 12-32 will give just as good steps on a double.

yes but it won't give the range and the lack of a large double shift and the cruising gears as well, not all at the same time, anyway.

FWIW you may cry 'foul' at my use of a custom cassette as it costs double, but it only costs double the first time; the big sprockets don't wear out (if you are vaguely sensible) and in most cases you can get all the faster wearing sprockets by buying a single replacement cassette. For example this is a nice touring setup

http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS&KB=24,36,46&RZ=13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32&UF=2185&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH

and uses mostly replacement sprockets from a 13-25 9s cassette, to which a 28 and 32T sprocket (salvaged from an old cassette) are added.

You could also get the same range etc from a triple that uses a standard cassette; I guess part of the reason why I chose the 12-32 cassette I did before was to show that apparently small changes can make appreciable differences.

cheers

Change the 13t top cog to a 14t and the middle ring from a 36t to a 34t in the link and that's my prefered touring gearing.Top set can be altered by swapping the 46t to a 48 or a 50t if gearing too low.

[The utility cyclist]

Each to their own, but I have no interest in using a triple. I like the shape and action of SRAM shifters....

sounds like the cart is maybe leading the horse to me.... so if SRAM were to offer a triple shifter, you wouldn't be tempted? I would; I find the massive doubleshift in a double setup a needless annoyance, easily cured with an additional chainring.

If you ask why have a double instead of a triple, there are only a few reasons

1) simplicity
2) weight
3) available equipment

The first two are not compelling reasons by themselves (in fact they are red herrings) and the last of these means you are indeed being led by the nose, IMHO.

cheers

Pretty much this, so many people say that a triple is complicated, that a double/single is simpler, an extra finger flick is hardly complex and in exchange for better/more gear options and not having the big steps is a better exchange IMO.
Manufacturers do lead, that's a given, some things are welcome, make things easier/better, even encouraging more people to get into cycling or cycle more, making cycling more comfortable etc, a 1x doesn't do that, a double for touring when you want a big range and again not have those big jumps isn't 'better' or more convenient than a triple.
The likes of Shimano have being a real let down the last 10 years or so, ignoring the fact that so many people still do want a triple in the higher end ranges and often don't need an 11 or even 12 starting sprocket means I'll spend less with them and just hang onto older drivetrains.

Perfect set up for me to cover all options for pretty much all types of riding I'll ever do would be 52/36/24 with a 12-30 12 speed

[Brucey]

Brucey;
You have lost me there completely...

the rollout of a wheel only appears to depend on the instantaneous radius. If the tread belt is inextensible, the rollout of one wheel turn will remain the same whether the tyre deforms (to give an instantaneous radius that is smaller) or not.

cheers

[Mick F]

Sorry, still lost me.

Wheel and tyre rolls out along a hard surface with no load. Diameter is one full revolution divided by Pi.
Do it again loaded normally, and the rollout circumference will be less due to tyre drop as the axle will be lower giving a smaller effective radius.

Off to the pub shortly.