Double, compact or triple

Fuoco

Which crankset for a heavy cyclist of something like 2OO lbs?

With a compact and 12-27 can i get hard hill or i will put the foot on the road?

Tnx

skyd0g

A compact will give you sufficiently low gearing for most situations. It's a better option than a triple IMHO.

careful

I'm not heavy (about 160 lb) but being an oldie I havent got the power I used to have and I live in a very hilly area. I have one bike with compact and 27t bottom sprocket and another bike with triple. It is true that the compact will get me up anything (just) but with no emergency gears for when I am tired. The compact looks better, has much crisper gear changes, and is a little lighter. Nevertheless I tend to use the triple more for long rides. In conclusion, I dont think either is "best", it just depends on you priorities. Hope this helps you to decide.

teagar

As someone who rides a triple...



Get a compact.

STEFANOS4784

As some-one who has a double and compact at the mo i'd say depends, sorry :oops:

Onan

I'm very unfit at the moment, and find my double insuffucuent for getting up hills. I've had to get off and push a couple of times.

If you're starting from scratch like me, I'd recomend a triple, because I certainly wish I had one.

Stone Glider

For a "begiiner" a triple offers advantages over the others. The middle ring makes changing easier with small increments to suit an ability that cannot, yet, cope with large demands on power or pace. There will be a gear for you, fresh or tired, flying or straggling home. As time passes and your ability improves then by all means change. The stuff will be near worn out by then

Yesterday, i was out on a short ride and felt rubbish "square wheels"? Anyhoo I left the front on the middle ring and tried using all the block as circumstances dictated. I was riding very easily, nothing energetic, just rolling along. I was surprised to find my average speed was less than 2mph down. There is a lot of nonsense written about triples (snobbery, ignorance, fear?) but it seems to come down to manufacturers producing a lot of doubles which bike shops need to sell :shock: When a newbie enters they may be sold something which, although not ideal, is in stock. So out the door goes happy cyclist with shiny pride and joy, but perhaps not the perfect choice IMO.

Mothyman

i put the same post in before buying my spesh roubaix..it didnt come with a triple (which I wanted) - but I havent had any probs with compact on the hills - quite steep but fairly short climbs so far.

I'd have got a triple if they did one but other factors were probably more important

fungus_the_muffin_man

I have found that I tend to only use my triple on a few occasions now. mainly on very steep but short hills. As my strength as built up over the past few months I'm using it less and less. And even then as before I only ever use the one gear on the triple which is to change down on to the smallest gear on the crankset when I have got as far as I can using middle on the crank and the largest on the cassette.

Thats why my next bike will be a compact instead of a triple I don't see the point in having a piece there that I won't use.

Fuoco

Firstly, tnx all!

I have 2 problems:
-i m heavy
-I love hills but I live in a flat place and i cant train myself in ascent, so when i go near mountains i fear to need a short gear (for example Dolomiti...)

Maybe compat is enough... maybe not

Now I m a biker but i love road (on mtb i have 22/32/44...) and I m buying a road bike

teagar

A compact will sort you in the mountains. It's barely bigger than the smallest ring on a triple.

Just make sure when you go to the mountains you have a few dinner plates at the end of your casset as insurance.

A 21 as your biggest sproket, even with a triple, will not do! :shock:

Fuoco

teagar wrote:

A compact will sort you in the mountains. It's barely bigger than the smallest ring on a triple.

Just make sure when you go to the mountains you have a few dinner plates at the end of your casset as insurance.

A 21 as your biggest sproket, even with a triple, will not do! :shock:

The casset is always 12-27, compact or triple it will be!

Diogenes

A triple is always the safe option in terms of bail out gears but you may wish to consider this.

If you put a Shimano compact 50/34 on (there appear to be more cassette options with Shimano) you can put a MTB cassette on which can give the the same overall range as a triple but with big gaps between gears. The big gaps tend not to be a problem when starting out as most new folk tend to change more than one gear at a time in order to get a decent change in gear.

Then when you are fit enough you just need to change the cassette. You just need to make sure you stay within the range of your rear mech.

D

Fuoco

Diogenes wrote:

A triple is always the safe option in terms of bail out gears but you may wish to consider this.

If you put a Shimano compact 50/34 on (there appear to be more cassette options with Shimano) you can put a MTB cassette on which can give the the same overall range as a triple but with big gaps between gears. The big gaps tend not to be a problem when starting out as most new folk tend to change more than one gear at a time in order to get a decent change in gear.

Then when you are fit enough you just need to change the cassette. You just need to make sure you stay within the range of your rear mech.

D

You are right but...
-a mtb cassette is ok with a middle rear deralliuor?
-A mtb cassette has a lot of gap!
-With the triple i can have... 3O only for hard hill,
39 for quiet hill, falseflat road, warm up ecc ecc
5O for group, flat, descent ecc ecc

Something like in mtb!

love2ride

speaking from the perspective of someone who weighs 120lbs, a 39t inner and 12-25t rear easily suffices on any hill up to about 27-28% gradient. Therefore just lose as much weight as you can.
On my road bike I have a triple because that is what it came with but I havn't used the inside chainring in months. A triple is good because it means you have a gear for everything. However if you do have some of the people who ride around on 54 and 55tooth chainrings will judge.

Diogenes

love2ride wrote:

speaking from the perspective of someone who weighs 120lbs, a 39t inner and 12-25t rear easily suffices on any hill up to about 27-28% gradient. Therefore just lose as much weight as you can.
On my road bike I have a triple because that is what it came with but I havn't used the inside chainring in months. A triple is good because it means you have a gear for everything. However if you do have some of the people who ride around on 54 and 55tooth chainrings will judge.

Yep, losing weight is a major advantage, I still have triples on all my machines but spend most of my time on the 53 or 40 ring. However I cannot imagine getting up a 25% hill of any length without using the 30 ring. I have also spun up hills passing the purists as they weave from side to side confident in the knowledge that they don't need a triple....although I fail to follow the philosophy when I am waiting at the top!

Riding that encourages further riding most be the objective. No point in struggling on a double while you wait for the fateful day when the weight has come down.

As for using a MTB cassette, yes the gaps will be big (but does that matter at this time) and yes you will have to marry the cassette to the maximum your rear mech will cope with. In terms of top speed a 50/11 combination is a bigger gear than 53/13 so a cassette of 11 to 28 will offer good top speed and a decent bottom gear. Shimano also do an 11 to 34 which may not fit a medium mech but if it can be accommodated it gives a better range than a triple with say 53/40/30 and a 13 to29 cassette. Yes the gaps will be huge but it depends on what is important to you, if you want a compact and struggle to climb hills then the big casette will help. If you are happy with a triple (which may need a long reach cage anyway) then it will do the trick.

The overall aim most be to make the riding fun and successful without the demoralising result of getting off and pushing. When I get down to 120lbs perhaps I will cruise the Yorkshire moors on a double...until then I will keep my granny ring in reserve!

D

Fuoco

Anyway shimano MTB cassetes are only at 9speed, so dont compatible with road group from 1O5 to duraace.

redddraggon

Fuoco wrote:

Anyway shimano MTB cassetes are only at 9speed, so dont compatible with road group from 1O5 to duraace.

SRAM XX is 10 speed

Fuoco

redddraggon wrote:

Fuoco wrote:

Anyway shimano MTB cassetes are only at 9speed, so dont compatible with road group from 1O5 to duraace.

SRAM XX is 10 speed

Not avaiable yet

redddraggon

I just got a Triple for my Ribble. (53/39/30 with 13-29)

My thoughts:

I had hoped to be able to spend most of the flat and hills on the 39t ring, but I'm going to be spending most of my time in the smaller sprockets on the 39 on the flat and having to shift upto the 53 if I gain any decent speed. So it looks like I'm going to have to do a lot of shifting between 53 and 39 with my current cassette.

I really think that a triple would work best with a cassette along the lines of 11-25 or 11-26, rather than the 13-29 I 've got paired with it. However I wanted the low gear of 30-29 for steep bits with a slightly loaded rack. With such a cassette a 42T inner ring would be best I reckon.

For normal road riding I reckon a compact would be best - it seems to give better chainlines in my cruising gears than what my Triple set up gives. A compact with a 27/28/29 big sprocket should do I reckon - might be hard at the beginning, but you will quickly get up to speed.

So for road riding I'd recommend a 50/34 with your cassette of choice - the 50 to 34 jump isn't that bad, once you are stronger I'd probably recommend upping the inner to a 36 if you aren't happy with the jump.

Essex Man

As previously siad, the most important thing is to get out and enjoy riding. If you start to find hills a problem because you haven't got enough gears, then this will put you off.

I got a triple as my first road bike. It has been weeks since I used this 30 ring, as I have become stronger and fitter. However, it got me through my first through weeks, and it is still there in case I need it. For instance I can't imagine wanting to cycle were I have just been on holiday in Pembrokeshire without my granny ring!

When you are fitter and you aren't using the smaller ring, what harm will it do by being there?

John C.

The answer is simple.

If you have to ask the question then get a triple.

pieinthesky

I would agree with John C the last poster. If in doubt get a triple. If you find you dont need the inner ring then just forget its there. If you find a compact is not enough you will have to spend a lot to change to a triple.

A compact is a compromise, you have a huge gap between chain rings and large gaps between gears on the cassette.

There is no disadvantage in having a triple, only advantages. Even the weight difference is minimal when you take into account the huge steel cassette you need on a compact

Alternatively get the best of both worlds, a "Compact Triple" Yes they do exist. Something like a 26, 38, 48 with a 12 to 23 cassette will give you everything you need for any riding anywhere. I took this set up to the alps and had several offers for my chainset from my fellow riders on doubles and compacts.

roger_merriman

I'm around the 200lb mark, i tend to climb slowly though i'm fairly unstoppable.

I use a normal compact and 12-27 cassette this will get me with ease up 20% peak hills and with some effort up 20% average hills.

To the OP if you haven't got, a bike yet in terms of getting up a hill there is very little between a normal compact and a triple.

for a 27t cassette a compact gets down to 33 inches
a triple gives 30 inches thats one gear differance.

Derailleurs are fairly clunky and brute force mechanism, the front very much so. so for some that and the looks/always been so.

your real choice is not so much the range of gears compacts cover the same range give or take as a triple. but the way it's done the compact has as you'd expect a much larger jump between chainrings.

Velonutter

I'm about 210lbs and I have a standard 53/39 13/26, I haven't had to get off for any hills yet, but it is hard work.

I am working on the solution that it is easier to change the rear sproket than buy a new chainset as I am running Campag Record, I was advised that a 29 on the rear will probably suffice on most hills.

I am doing the L2P next June and will specifically for then change the rear sprockets to 13/29, I know as I get fitter that I will be able to dispense with the 29.

Changing to a triple is not an option as it would mean new BB, Chainset, Front Mech, whereas doing it with the rear sprocket is so much cheaper.

redddraggon

pieinthesky wrote:

There is no disadvantage in having a triple, only advantages. Even the weight difference is minimal when you take into account the huge steel cassette you need on a compact

I wouldn't say there were no disadvantages with a triple. To me it looks like I'm going to have to do a lot of swapping between the 53 and 39, whereas with a (compact or normal) double I could stay in the big ring most of the time.

Velonutter

Just for the gearing sake, say your largest three cogs at the rear were 29, 27 and 26 and you had a 39 at the front, then your respective gears for climbing would be 37.06", 39.80", 41.33"

On a compact, say you had a 26, 24 & 23 and a 34 on the front, then your respective gears would be 36.03", 39.04", 40.73"

To my mind, having the 29 at the back and more flexibility at the front is better than having a triple.

The nice thing is that a 13-29 can be bouight for £30 and take 10 minutes to change and there isn't any setting up to do, whereas a compact or triple will cost a lot more, take longer to change and will require setup for the front mech.

I have been told by a number of people that although a compact is handy, changing the rear sprocket is all that you really need unless you need to go down to a 34 and 29 at the back :shock: .

redddraggon

Slow-N-Old I've got 13-29 and 53/39/30 on my Ribble Although I do want it for lightly loaded touring.

Velonutter

redddraggon wrote:

Slow-N-Old I've got 13-29 and 53/39/30 on my Ribble Although I do want it for lightly loaded touring.

Blimey when your on the 30 and 39 at the rear, that equates to a 28.50" Gearing, if you go any slower on the hills you'll be falling off or going backwards. :shock: :shock: :shock:

edindevon

To me this thread gives a couple of really good examples of how people make things way more complicated than they need to be:

pieinthesky wrote:

A compact is a compromise, you have a huge gap between chain rings and large gaps between gears on the cassette.

There is no reason why having a compact chainset means you should have large gaps on your cassette. You can use exactly the same cassette as you would if you were running a triple. Therefore the gaps would be identical. Obviously the lowest gear would be higher, but each individual can work out if this is a problem for them.

redddraggon wrote:

I wouldn't say there were no disadvantages with a triple. To me it looks like I'm going to have to do a lot of swapping between the 53 and 39, whereas with a (compact or normal) double I could stay in the big ring most of the time.

If you are running the same cassette, then a 53/39/30 triple chainset will give the identical gearing options as a standard 53/39 chainset. The one and only difference in terms of gearing is that you have the 30 ring available.

Edindevon

redddraggon

Edindevon wrote:

If you are running the same cassette, then a 53/39/30 triple chainset will give the identical gearing options as a standard 53/39 chainset. The one and only difference in terms of gearing is that you have the 30 ring available.

Edindevon

Yeh, but say you have 53/39/30 + 11-25 compared to 53-39 + 11-25

53-23+25 is useable on the double but the chainline is so bad with the triple I wouldn't use 53-23+25 on the Triple.

With a Compact and normal doubles all the rear sprockets are usable in the big ring, but that just isn't case with a triple.