Compact or Triple?

rafletcher

For sporting riding - triathlons - I'd go with a double set-up. And as most traithlons are pretty flat (the cycling part is a TT) then a standard double would work too. Bear in mind a few years ago there was no other option! I'd fit as "big" a cassette as you can. Note that some chainsets allow both standard and compact rings to be fitted, and with a Wipperman/KMC/SRAM chain link it's easy to change chains to match the chainset.

I agree that compared to the triple with a 39 an unfit rider (like me )will be chopping and changing more initially on the compact, but if you're serious about it then you'll soon be fit enough to use the big ring most of the time, or a standard double, except for the hilliest rides.

ctc

Simon E wrote:

Here's a graph comparing a 52/42/32 triple and 50/34 with a 12-25 cassette (source data: Sheldon's gear calculator):

I like this graph - think it illustrates compacts are good for where it's fairly flat, or going up hills, but where you have undulating ground you're constantly having to change big ring, then up or down a few on the small.

Personally I quite like triples as I like the 50 and 39 rings, and do most of my riding there. Occasionally use the 30, but when I do am glad it's there. But that's for the lower Cotswolds where you are going up and down a lot, but no really big hills. The compact I've got on one bike just drives me nuts with the amount of changing I have to do.
Horses for courses really

Kieran_Burns

CTC wrote:

I like this graph - think it illustrates compacts are good for where it's fairly flat, or going up hills, but where you have undulating ground you're constantly having to change big ring, then up or down a few on the small.

Personally I quite like triples as I like the 50 and 39 rings, and do most of my riding there. Occasionally use the 30, but when I do am glad it's there. But that's for the lower Cotswolds where you are going up and down a lot, but no really big hills. The compact I've got on one bike just drives me nuts with the amount of changing I have to do.
Horses for courses really

I'm of the same mind - I've just changed a compact chainset for a triple so now have one on all 3 of my main bikes (one is a dura ace 52/39/30 and the others 50/39/30. I just find myself in the middle ring most of the time and it suits my style of riding perfectly.

Langlais

I have several bikes with compacts and one with a triple. I reckon that a cyclist of average ability (like me...) will benefit from having a triple if he/she *regularly* rides steep hills (say 1-in-6 or steeper) and/or long hills (say 3-4 miles or longer, through to Alpine passes). For example, when riding a bike with a 50/40/30 triple and 11-28 at the back, I've been very grateful for the 30x28 at the top of the Galibier, and when going up a slippery bit of 1-in-5 the Surrey Hills in the saddle. A nice set-up for stronger riders doing a lot of *steady* climbs is 50/40/30 and 11-21 or 12-23, you get into the right rhythm and just click up or down a tooth as the gradient changes slightly. But for "normal" riding, the compact's 34x28 or even 34x25 is fine.

rafletcher

Of course there is now the option of a semi-compact 52/36, which IMO makes a lot more sense than a 50/34, and cam be couples with a 13/28 cassette.

simon_e

rafletcher wrote:

Of course there is now the option of a semi-compact 52/36, which IMO makes a lot more sense than a 50/34, and cam be couples with a 13/28 cassette.

I would prefer a 46/36 or 46/34, traditionally sold for cyclocross. It's what I'd fit if I was wanting a double chainset for real world riding. 46x11 is the same as 50x12 so 11-28 cassette should be fine.

Kieran_Burns

Simon E wrote:

rafletcher wrote:

Of course there is now the option of a semi-compact 52/36, which IMO makes a lot more sense than a 50/34, and cam be couples with a 13/28 cassette.

I would prefer a 46/36 or 46/34, traditionally sold for cyclocross. It's what I'd fit if I was wanting a double chainset for real world riding. 46x11 is the same as 50x12 so 11-28 cassette should be fine.

Oddly enough I have a SRAM groupset lying around now with the option for 46/36 'cos I swapped them originally for the 50/34 compact I just replaced.

Vesterberg

FJS

Simon E wrote:

I agree with others, that is a very useful graph. It clearly illustrates that the main difference between compact and triple is not - as many think - that a triple is better than a compact for people less fit or worse at hills: there is hardly any difference between the brown and yellow line. The real difference is the purple line, the 40 or 42 ring filling the big gap between the large and small ring of the compact.

paul_smith_srcc

Many of us have a very personal choice of the gears we like to use, so what you need to do is work out what those 'Gear Ratios' are then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket for example. By way of an example that is all I have done on my ’Tour Bike’ I use a 13-29 Campagnolo 10 speed set up with 26-36-46, which gives me all that I am after.

For me personally I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say.



It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples to large for me and the ATB chainsets too small for what I want.

Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. Sportive bikes by comparison are normally ridden with no luggage, plus set up generally for riding at a higher speed than a touring bike. You can see from that gear chart above that a 34t inner chain ring with a 27t largest sprocket results in a 34" gear, which until a couple of years ago was a common set up on a Sportive bike. Note Shimano road cassettes then evolved to offer upto 28t, then 30t and the Shimano 6800 Ultegra now offers upto 32t largest rear sprocket, resulting in a lower gear ratio than the previous generation triple transmission offered! As I said, even the 34t chain ring 27t rear sprocket combination gave a lowest gear ratio of approx' 34", on that style of bike that for many was low enough for most riders, even on a mountain pass.

To try and explain what a 34" gear ratio equates to, well I'm no fabulous racing whippet, but when I rode from 'Lands End to John O'groats, (LEJOG)’ I used a higher gear than that and I rode up every climb. In that specification I also toured the High Alps with two full panniers and again rode every climb; just, but I did it. That said I do believe that the way the compact transmissions have gradually evolved from 34 chainring to 27t rear sprocket, then 28t, to 30t and now on some 32t largest rear sprocket does result in more usable gears on the large chainring and more importantly in the correct chainline locations, on the small ring it gives you a gear for riding high mountain passes; or a get out of jail gear if in short you have just blown up! The Shimano 6800 group now offers such a low gear they dropped the triple version, personally I would like to have seen the triple still offered in 30t chainring 32t largest rear sprocket.

Although a 34" gear was OK for me on Lejog I realised when I was riding in a group I had to keep the gear turning on the climbs and ride quicker than many of my new friends, who were using lower gear ratios than me and able to ride at a slower more sociable pace, that along with wanting to take in the scenery is why I now use the triple set up as references in that gear chart above. As I said gear ratio choices can take some thought, the decision may not always be down to ability. In my case for local rides I seldom, if ever need to use it the smallest ring, I have even done full tours and never once used it, yet I have no intention of taking it off as I know that it’s there if wanted, arguably I could have fitted a larger small ring and still been happy, as my choice of chain ring sizes is more for to achieve the 46-36 combination than it is the 26.

Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for. An Audax bike like mine is often used potentially for slower tours, as such many spec' a triple over a double, where as some are set up more as fast day ride/sportive bikes, as I said above normally used for a slightly faster style of riding, as such they will normally have higher gear ratios than my Audax bike as a result. Just because I have set my bike up with a very specific set of gear ratios and more importantly the equipment choices I have used to achieve them, it doesn’t mean that I therefore believe what manufacturers normally supply are as such wrong; far from it, for the majority of Audax bikes-riders, they can achieve what they personally are looking for with normal road triples of 30-40-50 or 32-42-52; likewise many Sportive bikes-riders find that the 34-50 double compact transmission also offer their desired ratios; especially now that some compact doubles offer what the previous generation triple set up offered. Along the same lines in many ways what I have done arguably is not recommended, as there are certain compromises by using ratios outside the design parameters that the mech’s were designed for.

Paul

markhewitt1978

Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:

no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket for example.

Which is what it is for me, I'm often in 50/28

Kieran_Burns

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:

no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket for example.

Which is what it is for me, I'm often in 50/28

48 GI

Which is about the same as 39/22 (middle ring on a triple and about mid cassette)

Or 34/19 on a compact

markhewitt1978

Yeah, I worked that bit out . Thing is I end up there as front shifting can end up being a bit of a faff, so end up with 50/28 being my low gear - unless it's a proper climb - and then shifting up from there.

I do think a triple with a narrower range cassette would probably suit me better but I have what I have.

Kieran_Burns

The problem is that you are cross-chaining which increases wear on the components

ic.

Triple for me if I was dubious about climbing. I personally hate a 34t compact inner ring.

With a triple, you get a lovely 39t middle which is great for rolling rides, and a nice get out of jail if things get super steep. There is barely any weight penalty.

ctc

Going slightly off-topic...

Seeing that there is still some triple love going on for people, who reckons we will see Ultegra 6800 as a triple this year?

I've got a new frameset coming a Xmas, and I want a nice triple to put on there. I'm not holding my breath though.

Kieran_Burns

CTC wrote:

Going slightly off-topic...

Seeing that there is still some triple love going on for people, who reckons we will see Ultegra 6800 as a triple this year?

I've got a new frameset coming a Xmas, and I want a nice triple to put on there. I'm not holding my breath though.

I picked a Dura Ace triple to replace my 105 at the tag end of last year (in a sale) for £180. Light as a feather.

markhewitt1978

CTC wrote:

Going slightly off-topic...

Seeing that there is still some triple love going on for people, who reckons we will see Ultegra 6800 as a triple this year?

I've got a new frameset coming a Xmas, and I want a nice triple to put on there. I'm not holding my breath though.

Not sure if we will at all? I thought the introduction of a 32T rear cassette was instead of the triple option?

ai_1

I've been using a 50/39/30 triple with a 9 speed 12-27 cassette for the last 3 years. I'm not a great climber so I do use that 30/27 gear on a few steep climbs I do fairly regularly. I'm buying a new bike at the moment and probably going with the typical 50/34 compact and 11-28 cassette in the 11 speed Ultegra. 34/28 is going to make the steep stuff tougher but I'll be okay.
However another possibility I considered was to go with the 52/36 chainrings and a 11-32 cassette with the new medium cage rear derailleur. That would give me an equivalent small gear to my current triple and a much bigger big gear. A 12-32 cassette would be better as I can live without the 52-11 in favour of smaller sprocket steps. However when I'm not in the big hills or if I lose a few kg in the next year or so a narrower range cassette and the 52/36 should be spot on.

ctc

markhewitt1978 wrote:

CTC wrote:

Going slightly off-topic...

Seeing that there is still some triple love going on for people, who reckons we will see Ultegra 6800 as a triple this year?

I've got a new frameset coming a Xmas, and I want a nice triple to put on there. I'm not holding my breath though.

Not sure if we will at all? I thought the introduction of a 32T rear cassette was instead of the triple option?

It does suggest that one's going to be available this year here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ook-36392/

Of course, it may be mistaken...

simon_e

Ai_1 wrote:

I've been using a 50/39/30 triple with a 9 speed 12-27 cassette for the last 3 years. I'm not a great climber so I do use that 30/27 gear on a few steep climbs I do fairly regularly. I'm buying a new bike at the moment and probably going with the typical 50/34 compact and 11-28 cassette in the 11 speed Ultegra. 34/28 is going to make the steep stuff tougher but I'll be okay.
However another possibility I considered was to go with the 52/36 chainrings and a 11-32 cassette with the new medium cage rear derailleur. That would give me an equivalent small gear to my current triple and a much bigger big gear. A 12-32 cassette would be better as I can live without the 52-11 in favour of smaller sprocket steps. However when I'm not in the big hills or if I lose a few kg in the next year or so a narrower range cassette and the 52/36 should be spot on.

I don't understand why you want such big gears. 50t is enough for most people unless they're competitive in Cat1/2 races (and I'm not sure it makes any difference then either).

.... or have I accidently clicked on the Pro Race forum by mistake?

ai_1

Simon E wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I've been using a 50/39/30 triple with a 9 speed 12-27 cassette for the last 3 years. I'm not a great climber so I do use that 30/27 gear on a few steep climbs I do fairly regularly. I'm buying a new bike at the moment and probably going with the typical 50/34 compact and 11-28 cassette in the 11 speed Ultegra. 34/28 is going to make the steep stuff tougher but I'll be okay.
However another possibility I considered was to go with the 52/36 chainrings and a 11-32 cassette with the new medium cage rear derailleur. That would give me an equivalent small gear to my current triple and a much bigger big gear. A 12-32 cassette would be better as I can live without the 52-11 in favour of smaller sprocket steps. However when I'm not in the big hills or if I lose a few kg in the next year or so a narrower range cassette and the 52/36 should be spot on.

I don't understand why you want such big gears. 50t is enough for most people unless they're competitive in Cat1/2 races (and I'm not sure it makes any difference then either).

.... or have I accidently clicked on the Pro Race forum by mistake?

What big gears?
52/12 is a smaller gear than the typical 50/11 compact setup. You even quoted me saying that I wasn' t bothered about the 11 tooth sprocket!

simon_e

Ai_1 wrote:

What big gears?
52/12 is a smaller gear than the typical 50/11 compact setup. You even quoted me saying that I wasn' t bothered about the 11 tooth sprocket!

Trying to figure out why you want a 52t chainring instead of the stock 50t.

And if you're looking for extra-low gears on the hills why get a chainset with 36 inner when 50/34 would appear to be more suitable?

ai_1

Simon E wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

What big gears?
52/12 is a smaller gear than the typical 50/11 compact setup. You even quoted me saying that I wasn' t bothered about the 11 tooth sprocket!

Trying to figure out why you want a 52t chainring instead of the stock 50t.

And if you're looking for extra-low gears on the hills why get a chainset with 36 inner when 50/34 would appear to be more suitable?

I don't think I need "extra low" gears. The typical 50/34 compact with 11-28 cassette setup should do me fine. However, one bike I was considering (Felt AR4) comes with a 52/36. I think that would suit me well on the flat, possibly better than the 50/34 for some events but in the hills the 36 would be a bit big unless paired with an extra wide range cassette like the 11-32. However that's now available with Ultegra 6800 or equivalent systems.
I may not have made it clearly but the point I was trying to make was that a 50/34 with an 11-28 or a 52/36 with a 11-32 can get you equivalent ratios to the corresponding triples (50/39/30 or 52/42/30) with more historically typical cassettes. There are other advantages/disadvantages to triples but the range of gears easily available with two chainrings now is as wide as it was with triples until recently.

HellsCyclist

Get a triple. Wider range of gears if you need them. You can always ignore them if you dont.