Compact or triple?

timegan2002

I am buying my first road bike on the cycle to work scheme from Evans, prob either the Trek 1.7 or Specialized Alley Elite but as a novice don't know whether I should go for a compact or triple. I have only done 4 days of cycling in my life: 3 days in North Yorks on a heavy mountain bike, covering 60 miles per day over very hilly terain around Reeth, Hawes, Tan Hill (very painful) and the 4th day was ascending Mount Teide in Tenerife on a hired mid range road bike (amazing).
As well as using the bike for some commuting (7 miles across Birmingham) I hope to do more weekends in Yorkshire Dales and Lancashire around Forest of Bowland/Slaidburn etc and would love to do an event such as the Etap du Dales or Rivington 100 at some point.
It seems there's a bit of snobbery against triples?! What are the pros and cons?

Cheers

guilliano

A triple will give you a lower hill climbing gear and a higher top gear. A compact will give you a lighter bike with a smaller gear spread. If you struggle on hills or would like to spin up rather than push hard go for a triple. Can be good for day long rides as it gives you a chance to just spin the gears and recover. Changing the cassette for a larger one would have the same effect of dropping your lowest gear further if you opt for a compact.

Jon Cope

If you're lucky enough to have your scheme with Evans, get the Kona Japu 2008 model that they have for just over a grand. It's a beautiful, well-specced bike and if you're not racing, it will knock your socks off.

Jon Cope

I meant Kona Kapu, not Japu!

Jon Cope

I meant Kona Kapu, not Japu!

maddog 2

triple pros
definite: more gears, wider range, IOW lower low gear, higher high gear
possibly: smaller jumps between sprockets (cassette dependent)

triple cons
definite:wider arms, more weight (in crank, rear mech and chain)
possibly: more front shifting (you could argue this I admit), more sensitive to front mech setup, less looks, less cool, less kudos...(you decide this)

Many newcomers go for a triple then end up changing to a double/compact when they get more experience of their riding and gear requirements. I have virually no data to support this comment though.

tenor

To qoute Maddog2;
"Triple cons
definite:wider arms, more weight (in crank, rear mech and chain)
possibly: more front shifting (you could argue this I admit), more sensitive to front mech setup, less looks, less cool, less kudos...(you decide this)"

Timegan; the quote above is the usual response to this question.
Weight; The biggest myth on cycling forums; about 100 grams all up - totally and utterly insignificant given an average bike+rider weight of about 80,000grams!
Front shifting; used properly there is less front shifting with a triple as the most frequently used gears will be found in the middle ring. Again, used properly, the chain line is also better with a triple. This is only true if you use the inner ring before you run out of gears on the middle. Biggest mistake with a triple is to regard the inner ring as only a bail-out option. It took me a while to work tjhis out!
Front mech set up; as a Campag user I have no issues with this as the front lever provides a wide range of trimming. No experience of Shimano, road set-ups, although I have had no problems with their mountain bike mechs in this regard
Pedal spacing (often referred to as Q factor). The typical Q factor for a road double is about 147, a triple about 157/160. A lower value is generally thought to be 'better', but again, there is very little actual evidence to support this theory.
Less cool/kudos; You have to ask yourself whether you are after performance benefits or are you so insecure that you actually care what other people think about your bike?
As Maddog The 2nd rightly says, only you can decide this.
Personally, I have two geared bikes; one with a conventional double and a 13-28 cassette (which gives a similar-ish range to a compact with 12-25),and a triple. I use the triple for the more challenging rides and if I could only have one bike then this is the set up I would use.

Mister W

I started with a triple but went for a compact when I bought a new bike. I'd never go back to a triple.

TheStone

Mister W wrote:

I started with a triple but went for a compact when I bought a new bike. I'd never go back to a triple.

Agree. Could never really get the triple to work properly. Compact with a short cage rear mech works really well.

Chris James

TheStone wrote:

Mister W wrote:

I started with a triple but went for a compact when I bought a new bike. I'd never go back to a triple.

Agree. Could never really get the triple to work properly. Compact with a short cage rear mech works really well.

Just because you couldn't get it to work properly doesn't mean that it is rubbish.

I have ridden double and triples. In my view there is no difference in the complication of setting up and maintaining the indexing in either case. My triple chainset and front derailleur is Tiagra so not exactly high end stuff either (admittedly the shifter is 105).

I have ridden compacts and personally I find there is too much front shifting in my cruising range with a compact. I actually find the triple less faff.

I have not noticed the increased Q factor on the triple chianset. Likewise the cranks fn the triple are 175mm and I have ridden 170mm and 165mm in the past. I don't notice the difference in this eietehr after a handful of miles. A lot of the differences are miniscule in my view - real princess and the pea stuff.

galaxyboy

I have the same dilema. I currently have a Dawes Super Galaxy which is great but there are days where i just don't have much time and would like to get some miles in a bit quicker so I've been looking at other road bikes. My dilema over the choice is because I am often in my lowest gear on some local hills, but is this because of the weight or tyre size on the galaxy and would i be able to get up with a compact?

timegan2002

Cheers for all the advice.
Will check out the Kona.
I'm still a bit undecided but am edging towards a triple. Some of the technical stuff has gone over my head. It is my first road bike, im feeling the more gears the better if im struggling half way round a 70 mile ride in the yorkshire dales. you may disagree?
If I get a compact and need to change to a wider range of gear/new cassette for big hills for a long sportive event, how easy and expensive is it?

Many thanks

Tim

maddog 2

cassettes are £20 - £50 for the usual types, depending on the speed you run (9 or 10spd).

To change it you:
- remove wheel
- remove old cassette with cassette tool and chain whip
- fit new cassette with big spanner/adjustable
- refit wheel
- check indexing is okay

The choice isn't a technical issue though, it's a value judgement really
- if you want lower gears and a bigger range but are willing to incur a small weight penalty and slightly wider cranks, then go triple.
- if the compact low gear is low enough then there are weight/width/looks benefits of the compact.

NWLondoner

My flat bar is a Triple and my Road Bike is a compact 50/34 & 12/25 sprocket. I would never go back to a triple.

95% of my time is spent on the 50 ring. Only have to go down to the 34 ring when going uphill or when my legs get knackered.

I always found that changing across 3 rings on a triple was a pain in the ass so hardly ever used to lower or higher ring.

Remember you can change the rear cassette to tailor your bike to suit your ride.

I keep thinking about going to a 12/27 to help on hills but talk myself out of it as i do not want to sacrifice my rides on flats.

guilliano

There are no penalties in going for a triple, unless you want to be able to boast about the weight of your bike, but then you could spend £8k to get the lightest possible, instead of £1k for a good, functional bike that suits what you want to do. If it's set up right there is no reason it shouldn't work smoothly. Anyone who says it doesn't work well is either using the gears wrongly ie big ring to big ring or just has dodgy indexing

mike ives

I have a bike with a triple chainset but recently assembled a new bike with a compact double. I am finding it difficult to get use to a double. Having a closer range of gears on the triple just seems so much easier to use. I suppose I will get used to using the double more efficiently in the coming months.

Mister W

With a compact you have to get used to riding almost the whole cassette with each chainring as there is far less overlap than with a standard double or a triple. Don't be afraid to go to the extreme cogs before you shift to the other chainring.

tenor

"with a compact you have to get used to riding almost the whole cassette with each chainring as there is far less overlap than with a standard double or a triple. Don't be afraid to go to the extreme cogs before you shift to the other chainring"

This is correct. With a triple you will spend most of the time in the middle ring and use only the outer/inner 5 rings. For this reason you will usually get a better chainline. It took me a while to work this out..!

Starwasp

Not ever having ridden anything but a mountain bike before I got into Road cycling, I plumped for a double (39 -53) with a road racing cassette (12-23) not really understanding the subtleties of gearing. I subsequently discovered that I couldn't climb for toffee, so the 'helpful' LBS swapped my double chain ring for a triple chain ring and new rear mech.

The triple works fine, but I still have a road racing cassette on the back, and it was only when I got hold of a gearing table that I realised I could have saved myself a lot of money changing the cassette to a 12-27 instead of changing to a triple.

This all said, I have got used to a triple, if nothing else because in principle it gives me a lower low gear, and a higher high gear. The versatility enables me to feel ready to tackle anything.

I hear what people say about Q factors and cross-chaining, but frankly I am never going to be Alberto Contador, Chris Boardman or even Nicole Cooke for that matter.

I just like spinning up big hills without coughing my guts up, and cranking up the speed on the flats. Hence the triple.

Good luck

antfly

I ride in the Trough Of Bowland and there are some great hills there.When I got my road bike 20 months ago I was amazed how hard it was to get up the hills on my compact and regretted not getting a triple so I took it to the LBS and they put a mtb rear mech and cassette on and it made a big difference.I`m glad I didn`t get a triple now that I have improved a lot on the hills and the gears I have now are plenty low enough.
In conclusion,compact with mountain bike rear mech and 32 or 34t cassette means you don`t need a triple.

rickhotrod

A compact triple 50/42/36 with a 12-29 cassette is a much better option than a compact. Front shifting is quicker, as only one jump on the cassette is needed for each front shift.

By comparison, front shifting on a compact is awful as you don't know how many jumps on the cassette are needed for each shift. It can be 3, 4, or even 5 jumps.

The standard double will remain, with 50/42 chainrings becoming increasingly popular.

antfly

You are not changing the front one very often,though.Only going up hills and into strong winds is the small one used.

redddraggon

rickhotrod wrote:

A compact triple 50/42/36 with a 12-29 cassette is a much better option than a compact. Front shifting is quicker, as only one jump on the cassette is needed for each front shift.

By comparison, front shifting on a compact is awful as you don't know how many jumps on the cassette are needed for each shift. It can be 3, 4, or even 5 jumps.

The standard double will remain, with 50/42 chainrings becoming increasingly popular.

A 50/42/36 just seems pointless. Might aswell just have a 50/36. You lose the low and high gears of a normal triple, it's not as though a normal is difficult to use.

Personally I wouldn't bother with a 50t big ring on a triple, more worthwhile putting a 53 on.

passout

If you want both high and low gears, I'd say a triple. Makes sense if you are an MTBer too - old habits etc.

rickhotrod

redddraggon wrote:

A 50/42/36 just seems pointless. Might aswell just have a 50/36. You lose the low and high gears of a normal triple, it's not as though a normal is difficult to use.

Personally I wouldn't bother with a 50t big ring on a triple, more worthwhile putting a 53 on.

A 50/42/36 would require only one click on the right shifter when a front shift is made. (ie. click on right shifter, click on left shifter). That makes for a very quick shift.

By comparison, a front shift on the 50/36 compact requires three or four clicks on the right shifter (ie. click click click on right shifter, click on left shifter...check cadence...if cadence wrong, another click on right shifter). That makes for a very slow shift.

The 50/42/36 also has a straighter chainline than a compact. This applies not only when riding on the middle ring, but also when using the lowest gears on the inner chainring.

In summary, a 50/42/36 has a much faster front shift than a compact and a better chainline.

bompington

I had the benefit of acquiring an old Raleigh M-Trax as my first road bike - forget compact, this was a good old-fashioned 42/52.
I'm still a bit hazy about how I got up the hills but thankfully my rear mech (12-23) folded in half a week before my first "proper" ride, last year's Etape Caledonia, and I've never looked back with the 11-28 I replaced it with. The front is now a slightly compacter 39/52 as well.
I couldn't really see the point of going triple, & from the sound of timegan2002's initial experiences, he won't need it either.

guilliano

Rickhotrod..... that only applies if you are concerned with keeping up a steady cadence. If, like me, you are happy for cadence to slow temporarily when you change from the small to big ring at the front then a compact works well and shifts are just as quick

timegan2002

Good debate going on. I'm still bit undecided though, have ordered in a triple Trek1.7 but not the specializes allez elite cos it only comes in a compact, but am worried this is a mistake. Like the cannoncade caad9 as well but it's tiagra not 105 for the same price. Cheers for all the great advice but it's pretty split 50/50 which maybe hasn't helped me decide. I think my main problem is I'm just not clear on exactly what the numbers mean?! All the bikes im looking at come in either just a compact 50/34 or a triple 50/39/30. The etape du dales website recommends a "39 x 26" for that event, but surely the triple would do the job too?
Sorry if im being a bit thick! Just wanna get such a big purchase right.

Cheers!

HonestAl

The numbers refer to the number of teeth there are on each ring, either of the chainset or the cassette

It's the ratio of the number of teeth on the chainset over the number of teeth on the sprockets on the cassette which determine how far the bike moves when you turn the pedals (and therefore how hard it is to pedal / how fast it goes for a given rate of pedalling)

When you write "39 x 26" it assumes you're going to have a standard double (where the smaller ring has 39 teeth) and a cassette where the largest sprocket has 26 teeth. So for every turn of the crank you'll get 39/26 (=1.5) turns of your wheel.

If you've bought a triple you've probably got 30 teeth on your smallest ring. Assuming you've still got 26 teeth on the largest sprocket on the cassette you'll have a ratio of 30/26 (=approx 1.1 turns) So it'll be even easier to pedal.

Enjoy your new bike

Essex Man

timegan2002 wrote:

Good debate going on. I'm still bit undecided though, have ordered in a triple Trek1.7 but not the specializes allez elite cos it only comes in a compact, but am worried this is a mistake. Like the cannoncade caad9 as well but it's tiagra not 105 for the same price. Cheers for all the great advice but it's pretty split 50/50 which maybe hasn't helped me decide. I think my main problem is I'm just not clear on exactly what the numbers mean?! All the bikes im looking at come in either just a compact 50/34 or a triple 50/39/30. The etape du dales website recommends a "39 x 26" for that event, but surely the triple would do the job too?
Sorry if im being a bit thick! Just wanna get such a big purchase right.

Cheers!

I am a beginner, have just bought my first road bike, and I am very glad I bought a triple.

tmg

I recently bought a new bike and it came with a double, after a couple of rides decided I needed a compact so switched out the spider and chainrings. The good thing is I now have the option of going back to a Double if I ever wanted too.

You've probably done the right thing getting the triple, but bear in mind you may find yourself wanting to swith over at some point but you'll only know that when you get the bike and ride it. A triple won't have any impact on your enjoyment of riding and you can live with it until it needs replacing anyway, whereas if you had gone compact and can't turn the pedals on hills then that could put you off from going out.