Compact or triple?

normanp

If you are not a specially strong rider (like me) you need very low gears available if you want to tackle Alpine sized climbs. This means a compact will have a very large tooth difference between front rings and probably a slightly low top gear (eg 34/50). The problem for me in that is that there is no front ring of say 39 to 41 teeth where I naturally like to ride on gently rolling country. 30/39/52 (30/40/50 on another bike) and 12-27 suits me well - I only use the granny occasionally - but when I need it I really do. I spend a lot of time in the 39 - really flexible requiring only gear changes at the rear. BTW I find Shimano front triples great - no adjustment problems (perfectly indexed). The Campag triple nearly drove me mad trying to adjust it and constantly trim it - not to mention the chain dropping off sometimes.
This topic will live for ever! I notice on velo101 that lots of French spoitive riders use triples.

timegan2002

Compact all the way. Did the Pendle Pedal on my new Cannondale Six 105 groupset, 100 miles of v hilly climbing in Lancashire. I went slow but didn't have to walk once. So I am happy I went for the conpact. Although it was the hardest thing I have ever done. Recommend the event although why they put such a tight time limit I don't know, I scraped in just inside in 9hrs50 mins, 17 others were timed out. just so the organisers can be home for CountryFile.

Cheers for all the advice though. Supose I am a skinny 11stone so can imagine a triple would def be better if you are carrying an extra few pounds.

cedargreen

I've never tried a compact so can't really comment, but I would be reluctant to change from a triple. No problems changing (whether Sora or Ultegra) and most of the time you just leave it in the middle ring at the front, from which you can reach most of the rear cogs without stretching the chain. I'm a nine stone weakling and the small ring still comes in handy on steep climbs. A bigger range of gears on the front means you can have fairly close spacing on the back enabling you to find just the right gear. As several folks have pointed out, the weight penalty is minimal.
Like most of these either/or questions (Shimano vs Campag etc.) there probably isn't that much to choose between them and it comes down to personal preference.

de_sisti

Why not order a 50/34/26 triple from Spa Cycles. You'll have the benefit of compact
chainrings and a 26 granny when needed. I have this combo on one of my bikes.

gkerr4

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.

Same here - much prefer the compact - just about to change the tiagra triple to a compact on my winter bike too.

fungus_the_muffin_man

I have a triple on my trek. I'm glad I did as it's really helped me out a few times though I'm staring to use the smallest cog on the triple less now. I'll keep it on for a year whilst I'm building up my strength then next year upgrade to a sram rival compact. As i'll want to upgrade my groupset by then anyway and feel i'll be fit enough for the double.
Some of the lancashire hills I;ve gone up I wouldn't have managed without the option to go granny for a short while.

skyd0g

...oops!

eh

I'm typically no big fan of triples but I think for a brand new beginner riding around places like Hawes they are the only sensible option. So I think the OP did the right thing getting a triple.

Biggest issue with a triple (Shimano) in my book is the terrible Q-factor. If they sorted that out, then for most people they would win over compact everytime.

Downwardi

Where in Brum are you commuting around ?

I am a new Roadie and for the past year have slogged up Mucklow Hill on a Hybrid which has 48/36/26 and 11-34 8 Speed usually on the 26 front and 28 rear.

Just bought a Trek with compact and I can get up there fine.

redddraggon

rickhotrod wrote:

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.

Click click click? Just press the button down a bit further or swing the paddle in a bit further, no great hardship.

aracer

eh wrote:

Biggest issue with a triple (Shimano) in my book is the terrible Q-factor. If they sorted that out, then for most people they would win over compact everytime.

Is it more than 5mm difference now (that's all it was with 9 speed Octalinks)? Given the chainline specs are still the same I presume it is the same for 10-speed. I'd not describe that as particularly significant, and I'm not really sure how they could make it much less difference than that.

If you're talking about Q factor as an absolute value, then yes Shimano aren't that good, but that applies just as much to a double as it does to a triple.

sherer

people seem to be forgetting rider strength. This is the main difference between why people go for triples or compacts. Do you have the strength to grind away with a compact or do you just want to spin like mad on a triple.

People saying I can do this hill on a 50-25 doesn't really help if the OP is a weak rider that needs a low gear.

There is no right or wrong and the best option is to have a test ride of both and see what works for you.