I have a triple, and I am really glad that I do. I can ride pretty fast, but don't have the power that many do on the hills. Consequently, I'm the guy you walk away from on the hills only to have me go screaming by on the descents and occasionally on the flats(and vice versa). I can spin a high cadence, but don't have the force to back it up on the hills(Lance does, which is why he dominates the sport.)

Most of the time, I eschew the small ring. But sometimes, on really long hills, in the middle of a race where I know I have to run several miles after I ride for two more hours, I am thankful that I followed my instincts and the advice of the guy at WheelWorks("If your friends aren't hardcore roadies, or you don't care what they think, get the triple. You probably won't notice the difference in shifting, if there is one, and if you climb a lot, you'll be glad it's there.")

Now, technically, a double will give you [i]slightly[/i] better precision than a triple when shifting, for the following reasons:

1. The greater the amount of crossover you have between the front and the back, the greater the stress and friction placed on the drivetrain. For example, if you are on the big ring up front(outside), and the big ring on the back(inside), and you shouldn't be, you will get some friction, and you lose some power due to drivetrain friction/stress as the sprockets try to pull the chain in opposite directions.

2. Since the front derailleur has to travel a greater distance to span the three gears, it isn't as precise in moving between them.

I think that these are the two most common reasons why people prefer doubles. (If you want to get totally sick, look at the high end TT bikes that just have a 56 up front.)

This is an argument that I'm sure others will have opinions on, and there's really no right or wrong(IMHO), but if you are not a super strong biker and will do some serious climbing, I'd suggest getting a triple. On many bikes, they are either the same price, or maybe $30-$50 more. If you have legs of steel, and/or live and race in flat areas, then you won't need it.

Remember, it's better to spin faster than harder when you're going long.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

How often do you use your small ring? If you never touch it, then it may make sense to ditch if for the shifting/chainline reasons already mentioned. But if you do use it, even only slightly more than occasionally, I'd keep it. When the road all of a sudden gets steep, if you're thrashed for no apparent reason (or for a very good one), if you know you have to run x km as soon as you get off the bike and would rather not push a bigger gear, that 3rd chainring really helps. I ride a double, but have a couple of buddies with triples. Just before the crest of almost every damn hill, they spin by me grinning as I labour to keep my HR down and stay seated - resisiting that old flatlander technique of standing up and hammering over the hill. And while I'm not about to run out and buy a triple for my bike, I have occasionally contemplated running an XTR rear derailleur and a 32t cog. Sometimes that 39/28 just doesn't feel small enough.

I wouldn't bother switching is weight is the only rationale, but wouldn't make fun of you if you did it just for looks, either.

---

<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?

A few years back I bought a bike with a triple which I have since converted to a double. Currently my bikes are set up as doubles. That said, I kinda agree with what the bike shop guy said when I bought the triple. "There's no rational reason to buy a double over a triple." (When asked what he rides though, the answer was, of course, a double.)

I tend to agree with the argument that most people ride doubles out of some sort of old skool, high performance bravado. Yes, there are positives and negatives to each setup, but for us mere mortals, I think it's a wash. So why do I ride doubles? Well, there's the aforementioned bravado, but I also have become very used to the gearing of a double that when I ride a triple now I find it really irritating. It's just that I'm used to the doubles now.

So to answer your question of would I pay to "upgrade" my bike from a triple to a double? No. It is NOT a trivial upgrade and I just don't think it's a cost effective one. While more parts are interchangeable between the two systems than advertised, you still need to drop a lot of cash for the swap. You'd be buying new cranks, chainrings, bottom bracket, rear derailleur, and front derailleur. (Some will argue about the derailleurs, and they are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to swap, but I prefer it.) I'd only consider it if you were planning to do a wholesale upgrade of your grouppo anyway.

So I guess I don't generally endorse doubles over triples or vise versa. I prefer doubles for me, but I don't judge all those wimpy wannabes out there who ride triples. Whoa!! Maybe I do! ;-)

I use both. My racing bike has an Ultegra double while my spare road bike has a low-end Campy triple. I have some problems with shifting precision which I am sure is exascerbated by the quality of the gruppo. I would hope that it isn't a problem with a mid to upper level triple set-up. Mainly I have trouble shifting to the large chain ring. I need to be at the smaller end of the cogset (12-13-14) and it still usually takes a few tries. It has given me some grief on group rides. I don't have these issues with the double, but I do suffer more on the steeper climbs. Given the resources at hand, I live with the extra pain & suffering rather than the shifting aggravation.

I use to have a 105 triple which I raced 2 IM on. As everyone here has already mentioned the key issue is - do you need a granny? My own experience (and my wife's and she had Campy Veloce triple) has been negative to the extent that my gruppo never shifted well (as already mentioned by others here) and the gears that I actually used (and were usable) was fairly limited. I now run Ultegra double on both road and tri bikes with a 12-27 & 52/39 on the tri bike.

---

__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??

To add my $0.02-worth here, I agree with all the comments above, except that I'd say it's not so much an issue of power as it is efficiency. This is essentially the cadence argument that has been debated in other threads. Sure, many people are strong enough to get over most any hill with a double and a big cassette, but it's far less efficient to ride hills at a lower cadence or out of the saddle vs the higher cadence and less fatigue that a triple allows. When I bought my road bike I pretty new to riding, so I opted for the triple. I'm a significantly stronger rider now, and could get over most hills on a double, but I still hit the granny gear when in the hills to keep the cadence as high as possible.

Another issue to consider with regard to chainline is the rear-center distance. A road bike can shift pretty cleanly with a triple, but a tri bike with a shorter rear-center distance may have more issues.