The irrelevant triple[dc]S[/dc]ince my previous post apparently stirred up a bit of controversy, I think it's appropriate to address the following question:

"Why didn't you include triple cranksets in your comparisons?"

Well, the simple explanation is because triples are irrelevant.

"What?"

Yes, they're irrelevant.  With the rise of compact gearing and wide range cassettes, triple cranksets have been relegated to the dustbin of cycling history (with the notable exceptions of loaded touring and possible commuters.)  But the question remains, why is this the case?  Let's find out.

Proprietary Parts

One of the biggest complaints about a triple drivetrain is the use of proprietary parts.  This includes a triple specific left shifter, front derailleur (modified cage to push the chain off the small ring onto the middle) and rear derailleur (long cage to take up additional chain slack when in the small ring.)  This doesn't include the obvious triple crankset and chainrings, and in some cases a specific bottom bracket with longer spindle (in the case of cartridge BBs.)  You'll also be needing to either get a new chain or add links to your old chain, which further adds to the cost of a triple.  To compound the cost issue of these proprietary parts is the fact that almost no manufacturer specs a triple option on any bike over $1500, so there's little way to take advantage of a company's purchasing power.  Why?  Because double shifters, derailleurs and cranksets are highly compatible, if not universally compatible.  This makes if extremely easy for manufacturers to spec bikes and doesn't require an entire separate stock of parts just to fulfill a very small portion of the market share.

The last hit to the marketability of the triple setup is the fact that there are no high end triple offerings on the market from major manufacturers.  SRAM doesn't do triple at all, Shimano only has a triple in the Ultegra and lower lineup and triples are all but gone from Campy's product line.  Finding a high end example of a triple requires going to an outside manufacturer or several generations back from the major guys.  What does that say about their confidence in what the market will bear?

But enough about the marketing and technology side of things, let's get down to usability, or lack thereof.

Why Do People Choose Triples?

Lots of answers appear here, from the proverbial "I can't climb those hills so I need a lower gear" to the "I like tighter ratios because I can spin closer to my preferred cadence" arguments.  Is there any truth to those assertions or is it all bunk?

3x11-23 gearing chart30 Gears?

Take a look at the chart to the right, and you'll see a typical triple setup (standard triple of 30-39-52 and a close ratio 11-23t 10 speed cassette.)  The chart is courtesy of Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator, and is set up for 700/23mm wheels with 172.5mm crank arms and the results are displayed as gain ratios.  

You'll note the highlighted gears are gear combinations that A) are unadvisable to use due to chain rub/crosschaining and B) are replicated elsewhere on the drivetrain with a better chain line and no front derailleur rub.  Essentially, you have 17 useable gears out of a possible 30.  So, there are 13 gears that you'll likely never use (or shouldn't be using anyway.)  Why have those 13 gears if you're not going to use them?

2x12-27 gearing chart

20 Gears?

Let's take a look at a similar chart set up for a compact crankset (34/50t) and a wide range 12-27t 10 speed cassette (all the other paramaters from the previous example are the same; 700/23mm wheel, 172.5mm crank arms and the results are displayed in gain ratios.)  

You'll find something very interesting: namely that you have a lot fewer overlapping gears and a lot fewer crosschained gears.  You have 15 (maybe 16 if you use the 34/14 combination on occasion) useable gears that don't result in cross chaining or derailleur rub.  Compare this with the 17 useable gears available on the triple set up, and it's plainly obvious that the double requires less front shifting AND less rear shifting to find the right gear ratio.  Frankly, it's far easier to shift the rear derailleur to get the necessary ratio than it is to shift the front (or both as is often warranted on a triple set up.)

Lower gears and close ratios?

You'll note that the absolute lowest gear ratio of the compact setup is actually lower than the triple in this case.  You'll see the highest gear is slightly lower than the triple setup (which could be rectified with am 11-27t cassette.)  Mainly, this illustrates the fact that you can achieve almost the same gearing with a compact as you can with a triple, although you will give up a small amount of the close spacing you'll get with the triple.

In reality, if you compare the jumps in an 11-23 cassette and a 12-27 cassette, you're only talking maybe 3 RPM difference between them.  What that means is if you ride the triple/11-23 @ 90 RPM and shift to one harder cog, you'll pedal @ 88 RPM for the same speed.  On the compact, you'll probably pedal about 85 RPM for the same speed, making the difference essentially negligible.

Sure, you can always put a 12-27 on the triple drivetrain and end  up with a very, very low gear (some have even gone so far as 30, 32 and 34t big cogs to give less than 1:1 ratios) but then you still have the problem of having large spaces in the cassette and 13 redundant gears.  This may or may not be a solution for some, but is it worth the cost of admission for a couple points of decrease in gain ratio?

Physiological and Biomechanical Considerations

Frankly, from a physiological standpoint, you're better off pushing those larger gears uphill: sure it's going to be hard and you might even need to get off to rest, but you'll get better and stronger much faster than if you use the crutch of the triple.  Think of it like lifting 5 pound weights every day: eventually you'll be able to lift 5 pounds easily, but you won't get any stronger if you don't add more weight.  By challenging the body, you get stronger and actually "grow into" your compact gearing.

Another problem often cited is the biomechanical issue of a wider stance presented by triple cranks.  This wider stance affects the q-angle which is the angle between the femur and the tibia (thigh and shin bones.)  The decreased q-angle from the wider pedal stance causes issues with many people (notably women who have increased q-angles to begin with) and can lead to knee or hip issues.

Ultimately: Why A Triple?

The only valid answer for this is personal preference, or if you're engaged in loaded touring (in which case a triple is definitely helpful for dragging 70 pounds of gear + yourself up all kinds of terrain.)  For any mid level recreational cyclist, the gearing available on a compact crankset is more than enough to get you over 99% of all the terrain here in the northeast.  Saying you're not strong enough isn't going to cut it: you can always get stronger, and the triple won't help you do that.

As an added "food for thought" bouns, consider that even mountain bikes, which very often see stupidly steeper gradients than their road going cousins, have shunned the triple.  That's right…most mountain bikes nowadays are running 24t or 26t small rings and 36t or 38t large rings.  Triples have even been deserted on the trail…