Compact or Triple

steve palmer

I live in a hilly part of the country and I'm a big lad, reasonably fit but not built like a traditional roadie (6'7" and 16.5 stone). I currently make it up the hills on my standard Allez Sport double but its very hard work and not especially quick. I am looking to upgrade my bike and would like to know whether I should simply go for the improved ratio of a compact versus taking the easy option of a triple? What do you guys think?

justyn_c_uk

If you are able to make it up the hills currently I would suggest that a triple is probably a step too far and a compact is more logical. The other option is you were running a 12-23 cassette for instance would be to put the largest cassette possible on the back.

I run a triple (my new bike will even have a carbon one) because I can't climb for toffee and I have managed to damage most of my knee ligaments over the past decade. If I have a 53/39/30 on the front I view it as a 200g insurance policy, but others might view it as a crime against manliness.

But back to you, a cassette will probably be the cheapest, then the compact and finally a triple.

SDP

i had my 1st compact ( 50/34)on my new winter bike ( always had a 52/39 or similar before )

TBH i wished i had gone for a triple...

the gear range is great but on a climb where i am used to just dropping to inner ring it now feels like my legs are spinning out meaning i have to double shift

i would have prefered a 50/39/30 as my insurance policy ....teh drop 50/34 is just too much of a shock for an old roadie like me

perhaps 48/36 with an 11-25 would have been better !

steve palmer

Thanks for the advice. I have gone for the compact with the view that I needed a little help but still wanted to have a challenge when climbing.