Neccessity of a Double or Triple Chainset?

donal_mcg

Hi all, just a quick question regarding purchasing a new bike. Im new to road biking (plenty of MTB under the belt) and have done quite a bit of research into getting a road bike.

I've tried a few friends bikes and think its for me so now its time to decide on a bike. A lot of the threads have given good advice but havent found any on whether triple or double chainsets are the way to go? Probably looking at spending approx €1000 ona bike as I've learned from MTB that entry level goes out the door pretty quickly and I dont want to be back searching for an upgrade after 6 months of use.

So in saying that, any ideas for me? I like the look of the Specialized allez elite (double) although as mentioned some people are telling me to go for a triple as the hills will be easier for a newbie like me. Any advice will be gladly appreciated.

Cheers

copacetic

if it is a 'compact double' 50/36 or similar then you don't need a triple. The 36 on the front will get you up any hill.

If it is a normal double 50/39 or similar then you will likely struggle up hills for a while.

doozerie

It is a matter of personal taste, to a large extent. Personally, I prefer a double chainst on my road bike. I have a 53/39 on the front and, if I remember correctly, a 12-23 (possibly a 12-25) on the back. I have yet to encounter a hill that I couldn't get over with that gear range.

On my MTB I have only ever used the smallest front ring (the granny ring) off-road and a handful of times when touring on-road with full pannier bags and climbing a tough hill.

So, it really depends on how you ride. Take your MTB out for a spin on some of the climbs you plan to tackle on your road bike, and if you find that you never have to resort to the granny ring then it is likely that you'd never need it on a road bike either.

TinyExplosions

Like copacetic said, check to see if it's a compact double or a standard one. If compact, you'll get up just about anything with it (I've a compact and never wished for a triple, and I'm fat and unfit!)

If it's a standard, you may struggle up the steepest climbs, but if you ahve to get off and walk, you can be secure in the knowledge that it's because you have a standard double, unlike those pansies on compacts or triples that go past you

Chips Lovell

If you've done a lot of mountain biking, then you should be fit enough not to need a triple. A compact double is probably the way to go, either 50/36 or 50/34, the latter of which is probably most the one you'll see most for sale.

Morgan

Here's a good comparison of the ratios available with single, double and compact chainsets:
http://www.canyon.com/_en/technology/compact.html

donal_mcg

Some good advice folks, thank you.
The "granny ring" as ye call it has been used on occasion on the MTB but not so much in recent times to be honest so looks like I will chance the compact. All my mtb's so far have been specialized so probably gonna stick with it for the road bike. Im looking at an 08 allez elite (cant find an 07) or perhaps a roubaix 07 if I can find a cheap enough one. Are they as reliable on the road as they've been on the mountain? All abuse (if I am indeed being foolish) thrown at me will be taken in good spirits!

Billy Whizz

Don't forget it depends on your pedalling cadence too

I'd consider myself fairly fit and have no problems with a 53/39, but I'd certainly consider a compact chainset on my next bike as I have a very high natural cadence and like to climb at 90-100 rpm.

Quite a lot of factors really, but yeah I'd say you'd be ok with the 53/39.

tunney

It all depends on the level you are at as a cyclist. Triples do have their place. I recently bought my wife her first road bike and as all her cycling is mainly commuting with some recreational cycles thrown in she doesn't have the legs or engine of a proper cyclist so she'd need the small ring on some hills, especially when we go to France on a cycling holiday.

Compacts also have their place. This place is the alps or the dolomites.

Doubles can be cycling anywhere in Ireland by trained cyclists without issue. A 39x27 will quite happily get people up anything on offer if they are trained.

In short it all depends on your level. If you're not that trained get the triple. If you are planning on cycling alot in the dolomites get a compact. If you are trained get a standard double.

donal_mcg

tunney wrote: »

It all depends on the level you are at as a cyclist. Triples do have their place. I recently bought my wife her first road bike and as all her cycling is mainly commuting with some recreational cycles thrown in she doesn't have the legs or engine of a proper cyclist so she'd need the small ring on some hills, especially when we go to France on a cycling holiday.

Compacts also have their place. This place is the alps or the dolomites.

Doubles can be cycling anywhere in Ireland by trained cyclists without issue. A 39x27 will quite happily get people up anything on offer if they are trained.

In short it all depends on your level. If you're not that trained get the triple. If you are planning on cycling alot in the dolomites get a compact. If you are trained get a standard double.

Cheers Tunney but the reason Im asking is that the majority of the bikes I have looked at are standard with the compact chainset. A few of the shops I have been in have mentioned upgrading to a triple (adding maybe €100 to the cost) as an option if I want to go there, as many starter road users had done in the past.

TinyExplosions

donal_mcg wrote: »

Cheers Tunney but the reason Im asking is that the majority of the bikes I have looked at are standard with the compact chainset. A few of the shops I have been in have mentioned upgrading to a triple (adding maybe €100 to the cost) as an option if I want to go there, as many starter road users had done in the past.

I personally wouldn't bother going from a compact to a triple, as the difference in ratios between the lowest gears are very very small

blorg

It depends on what sort of cycling you are going to be doing. If you are considering a lot of hills or a lot of long (160k+) cycles a triple honestly is beneficial. I could do without mine but it did make Slieve Maan that bit easier in the W200 when I was tired and, like last year, I overtook lots of people on doubles. Was overtaken a couple of times too, by presumably fitter people powering up on doubles, but I probably overtook 15 people for every one that overtook me.

Similarly if you prefer spinning up hills, it does enable you to go up any gradient at much the same cadence as you would be using on the flat.

If you are not doing major hills or long cycles then you don't need one as you can power up anything in a less than optimal gear.

A compact is also not far off the lowest you will get with a triple. 34-27 is the same as 30-24 which is the second lowest gear on my triple and I could certainly manage with that. I wouldn't not buy a bike I wanted because it had a compact rather than a triple.

I wouldn't make a direct comparison to the granny ring on your MTB as the gearing is a lot lower to start with - 44-32-22 on the front vs the likes of 52-39-30 on a road bike. At the back you'll be looking at a max of 25 or 27 on a road bike vs. 32 or 34 on your MTB. So your middle ring on the MTB = the granny ring on a road bike. A typical road triple could have a lowest gear (say 30-25) more like your second-lowest in the middle ring on the MTB (32-27). The road bike will be lighter, which does make a difference, but not as much as you might think!

cantalach

I don't know about all that stuff about how somebody who's trained will opt for a traditional and somebody else will go for a triple or a compact. It surely depends on what you mean by trained, and also what type of cycling you do. I'm not an elite cyclist by any means, but I would regard myself as trained. I use a compact and wouldn't dream of switching back.

If the hinterland of Cork City is what you're dealing with on a day to day basis, a bike with a 50/34 will keep you seated on the 'bergs' that have your 53/39 buddies out of the saddle and tiring rapidly. Unless of course they are using a 12-27 cassette. And sure if that's what they're using all the time, why not just save a few grams by reducing the amount of metal front and back, i.e. switch to a compact set up?

The oft-cited downside to compact is that depending on the range in the cassette, you can run out of gears at the top end. This usually only affects me when descending, but it has also caught me out once or twice on the flat when there's a strong tail wind blowing. However, if you go for a bike with a Campagnolo drivetrain, you'll be able to run an 11-25 cassette instead of the more common 12-25. Do the maths and you'll see that this actually gives you a slightly higher top end while still having the benefits of a really low 34x25 for the hills! Shimano unfortunately don't currently offer an 11-25 cassette, but they have recently announced one for their 2009 line up. This should be available at the end of the summer. You can also use an SRAM cassette on a Shimano drivetrain, and they offer a very wide 11-26 option.

The undeniable fact is that a 50/34 on the front with an 11-25 on the back offers a wider range of gears than a 53/39 on the front with a 12-27 on the back, and at a lower weight. Most non-elite cyclists, if they're honest about it, would like to have the widest possible range of gears at the lowest possible rotational mass. And I very much doubt they'll be too worried about 'tradition', especially when you can't tell the difference between compact and traditional at a quick glance. It's a no brainer really!

Caveat: if you do go down the wide cassette route, beware that running a 50/34 compact with a wide cassette might exceed the 'capacity' of a standard length rear mech. Both Shimano and Campag offer longer variants of their rear mechs for these situations.

tunney

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I personally wouldn't bother going from a compact to a triple, as the difference in ratios between the lowest gears are very very small

Probably with a compact though would be you'd spin it out very easily. 50x12 isn't going to up to much with a decent tail wind, never mind a descent!

Raam

cantalach wrote: »

...that have your 53/39 buddies out of the saddle and tiring rapidly. Unless of course they are using a 12-27 cassette. And sure if that's what they're using all the time, why not just save a few grams by reducing the amount of metal front and back, i.e. switch to a compact set up?

I run a 53/39 with 12/27.
The 53/12 is good for the downhill parts

blorg

tunney wrote: »

Probably with a compact though would be you'd spin it out very easily. 50x12 isn't going to up to much with a decent tail wind, never mind a descent!

I agree, I spin out my own 50-12 easily enough. 50-11 is actually a bigger gear than 53-12 though; you can get this with the aforementioned SRAM cassette. The downside is you don't have as tight gear spacing but I'm not sure how essential this is unless you are racing.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

50-11 is actually a bigger gear than 53-12 though

Really? What's the formula for working this out?

cantalach

Raam wrote: »

I run a 53/39 with 12/27.
The 53/12 is good for the downhill parts

Ain't that the truth

cantalach

Raam wrote: »

Really? What's the formula for working this out?

50 / 11 = 4.55
53 / 12 = 4.42

In other words, the compact's big ring turning an 11-tooth baby sprocket offers a higher top end.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

I wouldn't make a direct comparison to the granny ring on your MTB as the gearing is a lot lower to start with - 44-32-22 on the front vs the likes of 52-39-30 on a road bike. At the back you'll be looking at a max of 25 or 27 on a road bike vs. 32 or 34 on your MTB. So your middle ring on the MTB = the granny ring on a road bike. A typical road triple could have a lowest gear (say 30-25) more like your second-lowest in the middle ring on the MTB (32-27).

A direct comparison may or may not apply, it obviously depends entirely on what is fitted on each. For example, the largest rear ring that I used to ride on my MTB was 28, and I certainly wasn't unique in that. On the front I used to have a 24 or a 26 if I remember rightly. As with a lot of things, the gear installed are all down to personal preference.

cantalach

blorg wrote: »

I agree, I spin out my own 50-12 easily enough. 50-11 is actually a bigger gear than 53-12 though; you can get this with the aforementioned SRAM cassette. The downside is you don't have as tight gear spacing but I'm not sure how essential this is unless you are racing.

Yep, that's the essence of my point - most of us amateur sluggers will be better served by a wide gear range rather than by closely spaced ratios.

Chips Lovell

There's a gear chart here. (pdf format)

blorg

Raam wrote: »

Really? What's the formula for working this out?

I use Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator. Very handy if trying to decide between triple/compact/standard and what cassette you want on the back, you can see what various combos actually give you.

tunney

Range is not the be all and end all. Spacing is also an issue. Running a 11-25 as suggested is not a tight block and I for one, particularly when TTing, don't like jumps in my gearing.

cantalach wrote: »

I don't know about all that stuff about how somebody who's trained will opt for a traditional and somebody else will go for a triple or a compact. It surely depends on what you mean by trained, and also what type of cycling you do. I'm not an elite cyclist by any means, but I would regard myself as trained. I use a compact and wouldn't dream of switching back.

If the hinterland of Cork City is what you're dealing with on a day to day basis, a bike with a 50/34 will keep you seated on the 'bergs' that have your 53/39 buddies out of the saddle and tiring rapidly. Unless of course they are using a 12-27 cassette. And sure if that's what they're using all the time, why not just save a few grams by reducing the amount of metal front and back, i.e. switch to a compact set up?

The oft-cited downside to compact is that depending on the range in the cassette, you can run out of gears at the top end. This usually only affects me when descending, but it has also caught me out once or twice on the flat when there's a strong tail wind blowing. However, if you go for a bike with a Campagnolo drivetrain, you'll be able to run an 11-25 cassette instead of the more common 12-25. Do the maths and you'll see that this actually gives you a slightly higher top end while still having the benefits of a really low 34x25 for the hills! Shimano unfortunately don't currently offer an 11-25 cassette, but they have recently announced one for their 2009 line up. This should be available at the end of the summer. You can also use an SRAM cassette on a Shimano drivetrain, and they offer a very wide 11-26 option.

The undeniable fact is that a 50/34 on the front with an 11-25 on the back offers a wider range of gears than a 53/39 on the front with a 12-27 on the back, and at a lower weight. Most non-elite cyclists, if they're honest about it, would like to have the widest possible range of gears at the lowest possible rotational mass. And I very much doubt they'll be too worried about 'tradition', especially when you can't tell the difference between compact and traditional at a quick glance. It's a no brainer really!

Caveat: if you do go down the wide cassette route, beware that running a 50/34 compact with a wide cassette might exceed the 'capacity' of a standard length rear mech. Both Shimano and Campag offer longer variants of their rear mechs for these situations.

copacetic

tunney wrote: »

Range is not the be all and end all. Spacing is also an issue. Running a 11-25 as suggested is not a tight block and I for one, particularly when TTing, don't like jumps in my gearing.

range appears to be very much the be all and end all for the OP who asked the question.

tunney

I've the following set up:

53/39 on the front

and the rest to put on the back depending on the course.

11-23
12-23
12-25
12-27

Does me grand, i can get a wide range if required but likewise a tight spacing if required.

Investing in a 55/42 very soon

tunney

copacetic wrote: »

range appears to be very much the be all and end all for the OP who asked the question.

In that case stick a MTB rear mech on, lash a 38-11 on, and put a compact on the front maybe a 50-30? Great range.

Chips Lovell

tunney wrote: »

Investing in a 55/42 very soon

Are you Sergei Honchar in disguise?

blorg

tunney wrote: »

In that case stick a MTB rear mech on, lash a 38-11 on, and put a compact on the front maybe a 50-30? Great range.

Tunney, there is a happy medium; I would say for most non-competitive cyclists a reasonable range (with the bottom gear being of particular importance) is more important than tight spacing. For time trialling on a flat course obviously you want tight spacing and range is the least important consideration but OP did not post "hi guys I'm looking for my first time trial bike, do I need a triple."

copacetic

tunney wrote: »

I've the following set up:

53/39 on the front

and the rest to put on the back depending on the course.

11-23
12-23
12-25
12-27

Does me grand, i can get a wide range if required but likewise a tight spacing if required.

Investing in a 55/42 very soon

you're great aren't you? :rolleyes: not helpful to OP though.

kincsem

The problem with asking for advice is you get told the type of bike that suits the person giving the advice.
If you gave your age, weight, height, longest cycle, average speed, name a few hills climbed, then people could give advice targeted to your ability.

Run_to_da_hills

I cycled to Kerry from Dublin in 1978 on a 40/52 14 to 24 ten speed and that was plenty.

copacetic

pfffft, in 78 I was cycling over the sally gap to playschool and back on my 3 wheel fixie

zzzzzzzz

copacetic wrote: »

pfffft, in 78 I was cycling over the sally gap to playschool and back on my 3 wheel fixie

LOL!