I have a triple. I've thought about changing to a double, but I don't think it would be a good idea. With a triple I can run an 11-21 cassette for any tri I'd ever consider doing, which means I have nice small increments for the flats, a big gear for downhill and a tiny gear for uphill. Seems like the best of all worlds to me. I can't see how the advantages of a double (weight, and ???) offset the advantages of a triple.

Besides Roberto Heras rode a triple in the Vuelta (one stage). Good enough for Heras is good enough for me. Or so I tell me myself... :)

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

Triple chain rings have been discussed on this board quite a bit. Usually just before IM Lake Placid.

Just below there was a thread about gearing for Lake Placid. I usually chime in on these, but that inquiry was from a very strong rider who doesn't need gearing advice from me.

After having fried legs the first year at Lake Placid, I switched to a triple last year. It helped a lot. I ran 30/23 on my 650 bike. Had I kept air in my tires I would have done 6:40 for the course. I am seriously considering 30/25 this year. If I have that last gear, I am guessing I will use it on the first lap on the climb at the end of the out and back and both there and part of the way back into town on the second lap.

Go ahead and laugh, but maybe I will keep running through at least the first half of the marathon this year.

Trained by the Florida hills,

My bike came with a Triple and I did two IM on it thus set up, but I took it off this yr and run a 39 (25-12). The reason I took it off was simply it never shifted properly and has caused me no end of grief on rolling course (like rollers section on IMC) I have had it looked at by three different shops and every time it would come back the same. Its a 1999 105, was a 52/42/30,. now its a 29 & 52. I am not sure why its shifted badly, others dont seem to have the problem.

I would have it back on for IM Lanzarote which is on my to do list, but not needed for IM NZ and IMC both of which I have signed up for this yr.

---

__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??

Are you kidding! Triples are for wussies!

OK, not exactly. Last year I would have been all over the triple (would have done it if it were practical $$ wise), but changed my strategy a little bit this year. I have focused on improving my ability to climb out of the saddle for an extended period (thank you spinning class), and focused on just getting stronger so I can spin in a higher gear while in the saddle. I have done some rides recently as training for Wildflower, and my strategy seems to be working out pretty well. I feel mush stronger at the top of the hills, and I am climbing much faster than last year.

I think triples would be very useful for people with great muscular endurance, but not a ton of strength. None of the roadies I know would be caught dead with a triple, but for the most part their legs are like oak trees so they don't really need them.

Although I see no need for a triple for anything I ride, there are certainly many cases that a triple would be the best option for some people and I would be the first to recommend it for them if that were the case. Triples are coming more into vogue as evidenced by the upper line Shimano cranks now being available in a triple...Dura Ace and Ultegra are now available as a triple I believe.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

I wish I ran triple at IMC. Alomost fell off my bike on the last climb as both quads cramped. Never again. I'll put a triple on the next time I hit a race with big hills. I'll save all my energy on the run. No need to get to the top of the hill n a hurry anyway.

Aloha

Its not who speeds up the most, but who slows down the least!

Jack,

My Devinci Podium came at a bargain price but was only available with a 105 triple ring gruppo. At the time I bought it while holding my nose. But I have since found that little bugger to be extremely useful. Particularly early on in the season when I try to do all my climbing seated at a high cadence. Once a new gruppo is warranted I will have to think long and hard about going back to a standard setup.

Best,

---

TonyG

What is Enoch Root?

I thought about getting a triple to help on the steep hills until I looked in a mirror and realised a better investment was to loose the midsection innertube.
I dropped many pounds and this last weekend cruised up a 6 mile 2000 foot climb with ease

---

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


"on your Left"

I wouldn't be caught dead with a triple, but it doesn't mean that I would think of anybody any less if they rode one. Use anything that can give you an advantage is what I say.

Pardon my vernacular and I already know you will only regard this as one man's opinion, but: Triples butt-ass suck. In more articulate lingo, they represent a substantial compromise. The chain is longer, the drivetrain much heavier, the bottom bracket much wider, the cable travel longer, blah, blah, blah... They are a big, noisy, clunky mess. Only two even come close to working: the new Shimano Dura-Ace triple (which actually does function)and the Campagnolo "Racing Triple" which you do occasionally see pros race on in the Tour of Spain on certain insanely steep stages. The rest are cat pooh. Now, this admittedly opinionated view is from the perspective of someone building a triathlon bike. For touring bikes, OK, I can live with an inefficient, noisy, heavy, clunky, crappy drivetrain. On second though, no, I can't. Triples still suck.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom,



Why don't you tell us what you really think!

Triples rule! At least among us MOP folks that can't ride 200 miles a week and average under 19-20 in a 100+ mile ride.

I've had a triple on my road bike for many years, even back in the early 90's before you could even buy a "quality" triple grouppo. In those years, I was riding those 200 miles/week and had done some seriously epic rides. I would start to ride the legs off my friends at about the 6 hour point on rides through the Sierras. The triple was the secret.

At IMUSA last year, I ran a triple. My mistake was only running up to 21 in back; I needed a 23 or 25. I think I'd have been 20-30 minutes faster on the bike+run with the lower gearing. My experience on that bike course (and many years of riding in mountains and hills) is that, if you're going to ride 6 hours or longer at a hilly IM, you need a triple with a 23 in back. A 25 in back if your'e going to ride longer than 6.5 hours. It is simply silly to ride a 39*23-25 up those hills turning over at 40 rpms.

Many people scoff at me (and my triple friends) saying that they don't "need" a triple. Hell, I don't "need" one either. But I'm "faster" with one.

check out tom. that is pretty funny. dig it, on the one hand i don't know of anybody who really cares what anybody else has on their bikes gearing wise. use what you think you need. on the other hand i am pretty much with tom on the "gallocrank" thing. or, take it from my wife - i built her a sweet commuting bike a few years back, and she was gonna use it for hauling two kids and groceries around, too. i put a campy racing triple on and she was aghast. " what in the hell it THAT thing for? " she said. " you think i'm going to ride around on a ROAD in a granny ring ???" and so on. we left it on, put i am sure she never used it even with a 120 lb trailer behind her going up the niagra escarpment, on general principle. she would BARELY let me put a 27 tooth on her road bie for MOO, and would have killed me if i slipped a gallocrank on there. after the race, she made a point to say, " my gearing sucked, i want bigger gears" ( 53x12 ). heh heh, that's my woman. :)

Tom wrote: "Pardon my vernacular and I already know you will only regard this as one man's opinion, but: Triples butt-ass suck. In more articulate lingo, they represent a substantial compromise. The chain is longer, the drivetrain much heavier, the bottom bracket much wider, the cable travel longer, blah, blah, blah... They are a big, noisy, clunky mess...." Etc.

Tom, you seem like a sensible guy, but this is utter nonsense. My Ultegra triple STI setup shifts like butter, and is as smooth and quiet as the Dura-Ace double I have on my tri bike. And -- my chain is not longer, since I use the standard rear derrailleur. The space between the crankarms ("Q-factor") is what, 4 millimeters wider than a double?

As for compromise, a 39 chainring is a horrible compromise. The 42 is the perfect next step from the 53. The 30 comes into play only on 5%+ grades or where I want to ride easy. On everything else (steady shallow grades, big headwinds, etc.) the 42 is far superior to a 39. (And BTW--Shimano putting a 39 middle ring on the DA triple is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen! It defeats the biggest advantage of the triple: the 42 ring!).

As for weight -- well, we all know the nonsense of sacraficing performance of the whole system over 200 grams. Skip a donut once a week -- there's my 200 grams.

I hate to disagree with you about bikes Tom, but at least for the Dura Ace setup, most of those criticisms aren't on target. I use the same chain as with the double. The shifting works just fine. Yes, I do have to stay away from cross over gears. I use five gears at most on the biggest and smallest chainrings. I don't really get 27 gears, but I do get 17 (5 + 5 + 7) very comfortably with smooth operation.

The bottom bracket is a cm wider, but I haven't noticed that difference. I do add around 100 grams on the heavier crank and chainrings.

I probably would not want this setup in a TDF peleton where one bad shift or gear selection choice could be punished severely. Not likely I will be there any time soon though. In an IM, I have enough discipline to pick the right gear choice at my leisure.

I currently have the long cage of the triple deraileur on my bike. I am betting that I don't really need this if I stay away from cross over gears. I am going to switch back to the regular deraileur and see if that works for me. I am pretty sure it will.

I have to disagree with Tom. The triple on my bike shifts flawlessly and out here in Colorado where there actually are some insane steep hills (we call them mountains) having the triple is great. Admittedly I don't use it all that much but it's there when I need it. I only have one bike so it's there during races and I have had occasion to use it. I'm sure it helps save my legs for the run.

As far as what others think - I could not care less. I don't train and race to impress other people. I do it for the satisfaction of achieving ever higher goals for myself. If other people don't like my triple, that's their problem, not mine. I use what works best for me.

Definately nothing against a rider for using a triple. I just really don't like riding them or, especially, trying to work on them. I'm a spoiled brat from working on nice tri bikes with doubles and straight blocks.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

agree on the 42, I switched from a 39 on my race bike to a 42 - much more efficient, don't have to double-shift anymore (one to up/down shift in front, another to shift the rear cog because the jump from 52 to 39 is so big). No triple though, and I did find Old Stage hill in the Boulder tri a tad difficult with 42x25. On my non-race bike I have a 38 small in front and 26 low in back, which lets me climb most Colorado hills without excessive pain. As I get older I'm sure I will one day welcome a triple onto the non-race bike..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

I'm putting a D.A. triple on my Odonata.I know that this not a tri set -up so it may not pertain.I'm not ashamed to admit that I may need it at times.

The DA triples work. The cheap stuff is oh-so-lame. Sorry guys, I don't mean to be pig headed. I just am....:)

BTW: I see myself as a old man in a wool jersey winding my way up the Stelvio in Italy when I'm 70 on a Campy racing triple.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm partially with Tom on this, I see the triple as a horrible compromise in one area, the Q-factor. I want a low Q for the same reason I don't walk with my legs spread out sideways: efficiency (plus walking like that could probably get you arrested anywhere but in Texas). Ever notice how when you look at somebody walking rom behind, there is actually no light between the footprints, they overlap about 50%? Now the bike will be a bit of a compromise because we've decided to straddle the bike and not build it around the rider, so we need room for the bb and cranks, but it should be as little room as possible. So a narrow bb, narrow cranks, the cleats adjusted so your shoes barely clear the crank.

Triple doesn't allow that and for those interested in getting to the finish line on time, keeping your legs and knees in also has a major effect on the aerodynamics of your position.

That said, I have nothing against small gears. But I would achieve that through the cassette. Remember when cassettes had six cogs and 13 was the smallest? 13-23 was good enough for Merckx, meaning he didn't need smaller steps between the cogs. Add an 11, a 28 and a 34 and you have a Shimano XT cassette. You put that on your road bike, and 39-34 will get you up any hill that's worth riding up. You may or may not need a long cage rear derailler for that, I've done it without. But even better is something like an 11-28 (you can put this together yourself with TA or various Ti cassette makers), or a 12-27 if the hills aren't supersteep or you're a strong enough rider.

If all else fails, you can do what Steve Larsen told me he did for a customer: a triple with an XT cassette. 30 in front and 34 in the rear will allow you to not only ride the entire Tour, but finish it off by riding straight up the Eiffel Tower.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

great to see the number and variety of responses on this thread -- thanks all.

it's good to hear that there are enough believers out there to form a [virtual] support group, as well as hear some reasoning behind the doubles only orthodoxy. i knew it had to be more than just a question of "quien es mas macho?"

i suppose if i notice some technical difficulties [none so far, and i ride a 3x9 ultegra], strange new knee pains, or somehow get close enough to the podium in my a.g. that i need to make a higher priority of my aerodynamics, i'll consider making some changes. something tells me i'll be trimming my hair [cheap but effective?] or buying a 2nd bike [not cheap, but more fun than the hair maneuver] before ditching the triple chainring though.

until then, i'm going to enjoy having that sweet spot in my cadence available to me whether i'm zipping along the coast with a tailwind or climbing our local equivalent of the eiffel tower with the wind in my face.

You make a good point on the XT Gerard. Just yesterday I was looking over the Shimano site and pondering the idea of using an 11-32 cog. That would get rid of the need for the triple very easily. I always assumed this wouldn't work with a DA deraileur, but I could easily be wrong.

I have no idea if these components work with Dura Ace bar end shifters and the like. I just don't know diddly about mountain bikes or their components.

I do like small jumps between gears, but this is not a big deal on a rolling course anyway. Compared to Florida, every thing is rolling. You shift so much, being in the wrong gear never lasts long.

Is using XT stuff something that is "just not done" in the tri world? does it play well with others like Dura Ace equipment?

shimano mtn/road stuff is interchangable 100%.