The heresy of the triple

o.k., so i’ve been lurking/posting on this board for a few weeks now and i’m perceiving an unspoken rule about bike setups which has got me wondering…

amongst all the bike talk, including various threads on gearing, i have yet to notice anyone recommending a triple chainring, or even 'fessing up to having one on their ride. this observation has also held true for various other tri- and bike-specific discussions and publications, and unless i get an explanation, or maybe get professional counselling, i think i’m gonna develop a complex.

cerainly a triple isn’t for everyone, or even most people – there are plenty of us who live/train/race where it’s flat, or who like to push low RPMs, or are just plain strong and talented. but surely my situation can’t be entirely unique: i’m neither superhuman like lance, nor wise and cunning like slowman, but i still like to spin at high RPMs. add to that the fact that most any decent ride from where i live has to start with a 1000ft climb, and i can’t see a way to live without it.

i’m fairly certain it doesn’t change my aerodynamic profile any more than fignon’s ponytail would, and it can’t weigh much more than the couple extra swigs of water i should probably be carrying with me anyway. so what’s the deal? are there other folks who ride or condone riding a triple chainring, or does this just cofirm my suspicions that i’ve been a freak and a pansy all along…??

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… :slight_smile:

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.

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.

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,

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

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,

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. :slight_smile:

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.

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…

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.