Double Chainring & low Gearing

[Gearoidmuar]

I've toured a fair bit in my time in the Alps, Dolomites and the Pyrenees, as well as Massif Centrale, Corsica and Sardinia as well as England and Scotland.

Take my advice..

Get a triple with a cheap MTB chainset and if necessary a bar end shifter for the front changer. You will absolutely not regret it.

Double chainsets, even if you have a gear range below evens, are very frustrating in severe terrain.

Some of these big mountain passes are severe for a long time. The Col du Tourmalet (which I quote because I remember the figures) is 11.5 miles of an average of 8.5%. You don't want to be in "nearly" the right gear going up a beast like that.

I used to cycle with a group of lads for years, about 8 of us all told. We all toured with triples.

[rfryer]

I've nowhere near the touring experience of Gearoidmuar, but I've cycled a lot of hills and passes, mainly in the UK but some abroad too.

My experience of triple chainsets has been sketchy - I've found them a pain to get shifting smoothly and reliably. I'm hoping to be convinced otherwise when Shimano comes out with a Di2 triple.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy with SRAM's Wifli concept - a compact double with a 32 tooth sprocket. That's pretty close to the bottom gear you get on most road triples. Of course, having such a wide range on a double chainset means the gears are fairly widely spaced, but I'm happy with that compromise.

[reohn2]

My experience of triple chainsets has been sketchy - I've found them a pain to get shifting smoothly and reliably. I'm hoping to be convinced otherwise when Shimano comes out with a Di2 triple.

There must be something wrong with you're set up.
I've been riding triples on solos and tandems for 20years,6,7,8 and 9sp with d/tube,b/ends/kelly's/MTB and road STI's without any issues.yes I've had the odd problem,mainly overshooting the granny ring,which has been cured with an N-gear Jumpstop.
The triples on five bikes(two tandems and one solo 9sp with STI's and two solos with 8sp on Kelly's-friction front,indexed rear-) are 100% reliable
As for Di2,toys for rich boys/girls IMO,though I can see it would have some benefit for those with joint problems I suspect it's not aimed in their direction.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy with SRAM's Wifli concept - a compact double with a 32 tooth sprocket. That's pretty close to the bottom gear you get on most road triples.

How close does it get to 24t front x 34t rear?

Of course, having such a wide range on a double chainset means the gears are fairly widely spaced.

That and chainlines are the problem,other than a few grams saved,there are no plusses IME

but I'm happy with that compromise

I wouldn't be,and I suspect anyone with a reliable triple set up wouldn't be either.

[Ayesha]

OP is going on a loaded tour in the Alps.

I doubt very much if he's going to use the 50 ring on a triple if he had one. He'd be better by far fitting a chainset with a 22 ring and a 36. He's got an 11 sprocket, so he's got an 88 inch top. With the 34 sprocket coupled to the 22 ring, he's got 17.5 inches basement.

The problem with this now is staying upright at 2 1/2 mph.

[rfryer]

There must be something wrong with you're set up.
I've been riding triples on solos and tandems for 20years,6,7,8 and 9sp with d/tube,b/ends/kelly's/MTB and road STI's without any issues.yes I've had the odd problem,mainly overshooting the granny ring,which has been cured with an N-gear Jumpstop.
The triples on five bikes(two tandems and one solo 9sp with STI's and two solos with 8sp on Kelly's-friction front,indexed rear-) are 100% reliable

I'm sure they can be made to work, though I'd be more confident using them with a friction shifter on the front. If they're indexed, chain ring position becomes extremely critical, sometimes needing shim washers to get the teeth into exactly the right place.

As for Di2,toys for rich boys/girls IMO.

I've not used Di2 personally, but given that the two main benefits seem to be trimming the front derraileur to match the rear, and performing extremely slick front shifts, I'd say that triples were an ideal application. They could even be extended to select the incrementally "next" gear intelligently, switching chainrings where necessary. Or you could run a short-cage rear derraileur with a wide-range chainset, and prevent shifts into untenable gears.

I agree it's an expensive technology, but given the amount people are spending on bikes these days, I don't think it's all that outrageous.

How close does it (SRAM WiFli) get to 24t front x 34t rear?

Clearly, not very. But it gets pretty close to the 30t front x 28t rear that was the best triple that Shimano Ultegra could offer until this year.

In my view, the main advantage of the triple chainset in comparison to a double is a (potentially) wider gear range, while keeping narrow inter-gear spacings. The downsides are higher cost, more weight, trickier adjustment and less straightforward gear selection. Neither's better in all cases - it depends on your priorities and style of cycling.

[BarryS]

I have two chainsets to do this on, both expensive but nice, TA and Middleburn.
What's needed is compact chainset, with 94bcd (probably a triple with 58bcd inner), ignore the inner mounts and use TA rings 46/30 as a double. This shift quite well with a standard double front mech, doesn't much matter which one

[reohn2]

I'm sure they can be made to work, though I'd be more confident using them with a friction shifter on the front. If they're indexed, chain ring position becomes extremely critical, sometimes needing shim washers to get the teeth into exactly the right place.

There's nothing complicated about triples,they don't have to be "made to work",they simply work when set up correctly,which isn't rocket science,with either STI's or friction.
No tricks,shims,smoke or mirrors,the set up need be no more critical than a double.
I run triples,Stronglight Impact and Shimano,with none standard chainrings,STI's on 24/36/46 on the tandems,one a S/light the other Shimano one with a 105front mech the other Ultegra.
A solo with 9sp STI's and 26/36/48 rings Ultegra front mech.
Two solos friction 8sp,one with 26/36/46,one with 26/38/48 Tiagra front mechs with Sram 9sp chains.
All have 9sp either Deore or XT or XTR long cage rear mechs except one which has an Ultegra long cage rear mech.
I'll repeat not rocket science,no smoke,no mirrors,good set up no shims,etc.100% reliable.
I don't do finicky,pernickety mechanics just solid honest to goodness reliable,mechanics that I ride and other than clean and lubing aren't touched for months on end,infact I can't think of a more reliable drivetrain,other than IHG but if you read about the Shimano 11sp Alfine elsewhere on here a damn sight more reliable than those!

I've not used Di2 personally, but given that the two main benefits seem to be trimming the front derraileur to match the rear, and performing extremely slick front shifts, I'd say that triples were an ideal application. They could even be extended to select the incrementally "next" gear intelligently, switching chainrings where necessary. Or you could run a short-cage rear derraileur with a wide-range chainset, and prevent shifts into untenable gears.

I agree it's an expensive technology, but given the amount people are spending on bikes these days, I don't think it's all that outrageous.

I'm sure anything's possible if enough money's thrown at it,but back in the real world.The last two solos mentioned can get ridden in some pretty aweful conditions off road,here's a one ride mud bath,the bike was clean prior to the ride and was hosed down after the photo was taken.
Di2 isn't cheap enough or even if I could afford it would I be confident enough to take a hosepipe to it:-

How close does it (SRAM WiFli) get to 24t front x 34t rear?

Clearly, not very.

Then it's no use to me and many,many others.

But it gets pretty close to the 30t front x 28t rear that was the best triple that Shimano Ultegra could offer until this year.

30x28 won't do the trick on a gravel track or loaded up on tarmac, at 15 to 20% incline,26x32 will .

In my view, the main advantage of the triple chainset in comparison to a double is a (potentially) wider gear range, while keeping narrow inter-gear spacings.

You betja

The downsides are higher cost, more weight, trickier adjustment and less straightforward gear selection.

Compared with any of the other equipment you've mentioned my triples are cheaper by far.
The more weight you mention is a tiny inner ring
The adjustment isn't any trickier than setting up a double.
The extra gear selection = one more push of the STI paddle or a little bit further push of the friction lever,no smoke/mirrors etc.

Neither's better in all cases - it depends on your priorities and style of cycling.

Triples are better in all cases where steep inclines and or loads are being carried,And more so when age is creeping up on the rider.
The triple offers three sets of whatever ratios the rider prefers wide or narrow clusters.
If I wish,I can have a 9sp straight through 14-22 cassette with a 24/36/50 and have bottom almost 1to1 and a top tall enough top for 30mph+. what double gives that versatility and close ratios to boot?
Check out the bottom gear with a 34/50 compact or worse still a 38/50 road double using the same cassette!
If I change that 9sp cassette for a 14-16-17-19-21-23-26-28-32 I still have a close ish cluster and bottom gear that gets me up the side of a house!

[meic]

But it gets pretty close to the 30t front x 28t rear that was the best triple that Shimano Ultegra could offer until this year.

If you have to stick religiously to 100% Ultegra then that is so, however you could easily swap that 30t ring for a 24t ring. The new ones will no longer allow that, so I reckon this years Ultegra are probably worse.
The increase of capacity at the rear is quite welcome though and can easily be applied to older (even 8 speed) transmissions.

[reohn2]

But it gets pretty close to the 30t front x 28t rear that was the best triple that Shimano Ultegra could offer until this year.

If you have to stick religiously to 100% Ultegra then that is so, however you could easily swap that 30t ring for a 24t ring. The new ones will no longer allow that, so I reckon this years Ultegra are probably worse.
The increase of capacity at the rear is quite welcome though and can easily be applied to older (even 8 speed) transmissions.

But not with Di2

[rfryer]

Without wishing to flog a dead horse...

I'm very happy that you (reohn2) get on with triples so well. My experience with Ultegra has been less rosy. It worked OK initially, but then I replaced the inner and middle chainrings to lower the gearing, and thereafter the shifting was much less clean, to the extent that I was adjusting the cable to choose whether I wanted reliable access to the inner two or outer two chainrings. And, despite what you might think, I'm reasonably competent at setting up bikes.

In contrast, my double setup has been very reliable, and wasn't at all phased when I swapped in ovalised chainrings.

I'm surprised that you can't accept that a double setup might not be as reliable as a triple - that's the opposite of my experience, and counter-intuitive given the reduced complexity. In fact, I'm even finding my Alfine 11 to be more reliable and nicer to use than a triple, but it's early days there! I do like the fact that on an IGH you can lower the gearing of the entire bike by swapping in a single, low-cost sprocket.

My comment about gear selection is very much a personal one. I find that on a double there is far less call to switch chainrings, and I like that. Simultaneous front/rear shifts are far less straightforward and predictable than rear-only shifts, and I found myself doing a lot more of them on a triple setup.

As I said before, it's all a matter of preference. I prefer the shifting style of a double, I'm flexible enough with my cadence to tolerate wide gear spacings, and if I need it I'm more than happy to sacrifice some top-end gearing to have the bottom-end that I need.

But I fully accept that they are not tradeoffs that you'd be happy with. That's why both doubles and triples are available, and it's worth openly discussing the differences to help people who might be considering either option.

[Gearoidmuar]

Have you ridden up the Col du Tourmalet on a double? or the Stelvio? or the Aubisque?

The only trouble I had on a triple on a tour was when I changed the chain just before I went. I had no 9-speed chain handy so I put in an 8. Mistake. I was changing the front end all day to stop rubbing. You wouldn't think that would make such a difference, but it did.

Mind you, the best system by far, which I have on my best tourer, is a Rohloff. This will give you the best gear at all times all day. A friend of mine who is totally my equal and uses a triple, cannot keep up with me on a big mountain when I have my Rohloff (I'm not talking about my trying to drop him, but it's what actually happens). But of course it's expensive and non-standard.

[rfryer]

No, I've not ridden the classic French cols on a double. I have ridden classic UK climbs, up to 1 in 3 gradient, on both a triple and a compact double with WiFli.

Maybe there's a disconnect, in that by "double" you think I mean a traditional road racing double, which is invariably geared very high. In fact, I mean any system with two front chainrings, and you can get some very small ones if you're prepared to sacrifice some of the top end in order to be able to climb the steeps.

Anyway, I'm starting to feel this has been discussed (or, rather, argued) to death. Expressions like "The best system by far is..." don't really get us very far. I think all systems have pros and cons, and am very interested in discussing them and deciding which suits me best for a given ride. That's why I had had a triple until it was stolen a few weeks ago, and currently own a normal compact double, a WiFli compact double, an Alfine 11 and a fixed gear. I'd also hope to try Rohloff and NuVinci hubs at some point, as well as electronic shifting. There are so many options out there - it's great!

All the best!

[reohn2]

Without wishing to flog a dead horse...

The horse has been dead for some time,due to overgearing

I'm very happy that you (reohn2) get on with triples so well. My experience with Ultegra has been less rosy. It worked OK initially, but then I replaced the inner and middle chainrings to lower the gearing, and thereafter the shifting was much less clean, to the extent that I was adjusting the cable to choose whether I wanted reliable access to the inner two or outer two chainrings. And, despite what you might think, I'm reasonably competent at setting up bikes.

Chainring sizes?

I'm surprised that you can't accept that a double setup might not be as reliable as a triple - that's the opposite of my experience,

But that's not what I said.

and counter-intuitive given the reduced complexity

It isn't more complex,it's just one more chainring.

. In fact, I'm even finding my Alfine 11 to be more reliable and nicer to use than a triple, but it's early days there! I do like the fact that on an IGH you can lower the gearing of the entire bike by swapping in a single, low-cost sprocket.

But it doesn't help with the overall range or the gaps between gears and as you say it's early days.

My comment about gear selection is very much a personal one. I find that on a double there is far less call to switch chainrings, and I like that. Simultaneous front/rear shifts are far less straightforward and predictable than rear-only shifts, and I found myself doing a lot more of them on a triple setup.

So what's to stop you having the same outer rings on the triple and a inner ring of choice for the real hilly stuff or when you've just bonked and around the next bend you're looking at a 20%
hill,which is just one of many scenarios where a triple will pull or rather push you out of the mire so to speak.

As I said before, it's all a matter of preference. I prefer the shifting style of a double

There's no difference in shifting style,it's exactly the same only with one extra chainring.
There was a time when unloaded I could get up just about anything on 38x26 however time and a realisation that sitting in and twiddling a small gear up those "anything" climbs took less out of me and I enjoyed the riding more.At that point I bought a triple chainset and never looked back.

I'm flexible enough with my cadence to tolerate wide gear spacings, and if I need it I'm more than happy to sacrifice some top-end gearing to have the bottom-end that I need.

That's OK then,whatever strums yer strings.
I have no wish to change your riding style to mine but equally so,I and many,many more tourists,not to mention almost all of the MTB world, ride triples without the complexity or gear changing issues you mention.

But I fully accept that they are not tradeoffs that you'd be happy with. That's why both doubles and triples are available, and it's worth openly discussing the differences to help people who might be considering either option.

That's why I take issue with people knocking triples,doubles can't do what triples can without serious compromises, end of,as I said up thread:-

I can have a 9sp straight through 14-22 cassette with a 24/36/50 and have bottom almost 1to1 and a top tall enough top for 30mph+. what double gives that versatility and close ratios to boot?
Check out the bottom gear with a 34/50 compact or worse still a 38/50 road double using the same cassette!
If I change that 9sp cassette for a 14-16-17-19-21-23-26-28-32 I still have a close ish cluster and bottom gear that gets me up the side of a house!

[RickH]

... then I replaced the inner and middle chainrings to lower the gearing, and thereafter the shifting was much less clean, to the extent that I was adjusting the cable to choose whether I wanted reliable access to the inner two or outer two chainrings.

That is probably the root of your problem - only changing the middle & small rings - as the side plates of a triple front mech are shaped. You need to keep close to the same number of teeth difference between the chainrings, particularly the middle & outer, although you can often successfully change the inner so it is slightly smaller.

Rick.

[rfryer]

I'm very happy that you (reohn2) get on with triples so well. My experience with Ultegra has been less rosy. It worked OK initially, but then I replaced the inner and middle chainrings to lower the gearing, and thereafter the shifting was much less clean, to the extent that I was adjusting the cable to choose whether I wanted reliable access to the inner two or outer two chainrings. And, despite what you might think, I'm reasonably competent at setting up bikes.

Chainring sizes?

I dropped the inner from, I think, 30 to 26, the smallest compatible with the BCD. I then replaced the middle after an incedent with loose chainset bolts caused it to bend I think it was after this that the shifting got more problematical, and I don't know if it was related to a differently ramped chainring, different tooth count (I don't remember the details) or because I mislaid the shim washers that were used on the original. Anyway, I came away with the impression that triples were much fiddlier to set up correctly than doubles.

I'm surprised that you can't accept that a double setup might not be as reliable as a triple - that's the opposite of my experience,

But that's not what I said.

You did say, of triples,

I can't think of a more reliable drivetrain...

...which I took to include doubles. OK, technically, you were just saying that triples were no less reliable than doubles.

and counter-intuitive given the reduced complexity

It isn't more complex,it's just one more chainring.

...plus a three-way STI shifter, with tighter tolerances due to the need to reliably select the middle chainring while shifting in both directions.

My comment about gear selection is very much a personal one. I find that on a double there is far less call to switch chainrings, and I like that. Simultaneous front/rear shifts are far less straightforward and predictable than rear-only shifts, and I found myself doing a lot more of them on a triple setup.

So what's to stop you having the same outer rings on the triple and a inner ring of choice for the real hilly stuff or when you've just bonked and around the next bend you're looking at a 20%
hill,which is just one of many scenarios where a triple will pull or rather push you out of the mire so to speak.

I think that's pretty much what I used to have. However, my perception (and I could be wrong here) is that the cage on a triple front dérailleur is narrower than on a double in order to hit that middle ring accurately, and that therefore the ability to cross-chain is reduced, forcing more front-shifts. I'm pretty sure my middle ring used to dislike the rear dérailleur being at either extreme, meaning that you can't strictly use it as a double with a bail-out clause. But I could be talking tosh

One other down-side of triples I forgot to mention earlier is the increased Q-factor, which I would assume is more relevant to some than others. Personally, I can't say I noticed a lot of difference!

I'm definitely not anti-triple; there's no arguing with the wider gear range without the wide inter-gear spacing. Hopefully, at some point, I'll get to ride an electronically-shifting triple that eliminates most of what I see as the downsides.