Double or triple set up for a newbie to road bikes?

PH5121

I am a lapsed mountain biker, mid 30's wanting to regain the fitness of my youth and have decided I want a road bike.

I like the Giant Defy range and have a couple of local stockists. However as is always the case I set out with a budget of circa £500 and intended to get a Defy 3.5, however now I am undecided as to go for a Tiagra equipped bike such as the Defy 2.

I would be grateful for advice from experienced riders if they thought that as an unfit/fat bloke would the triple chain ring set up of the lower range bikes be better suited to a beginner than the double Tiagra set up? There are no mountains in my part of the country, but when fitter I would be heading to the Yorkshire Dales / North Yorkshire Moors / Lake District which are a bit hillier.

I know that I should have a test ride and see, but finding a stockist who allows a test ride as so far been impossible, so any advice would be appreciated.

Paul

danowat

I have a double on my Allez, I have no problem with inclines, but then again, I am in Norfolk!!!

furiousd

I have just bought a road bike, early 30's trying to get fit again traditionally and still do ride an MTB.

I went for a compact, everything i have read on here suggests that you do not need a triple. It is personal choice. On the basis i have not ridden mine yet that is all i can offer. First ride this evening.

D

Lycra Man

I have a triple on my road bike. What little extra weight it adds allows me to cycle up the very steepest of hils that I know.
I would go for a triple, as then you will have that extra range of gears when you are ready to use them.
And a triple will allow you to spin up the hills, preserving your knees from damage.
But that's just my opinion. Oh, and I'm 60 and weigh 14.5 stone, if that makes any difference.

Lycra Man

stabilised

With a compact double as standard and a 12-25 cassette on the Defy 2 you get a pretty low bottom gear in any case (roughly 36 inches). The Defy 3.5 has a 30 tooth granny ring and a 12-26 cassette for a roughly 30 inch bottom gear. That's pretty seriously low.

If you're fit when you head out for the hilly stuff then you almost certainly won't need that. I'm not very fit a bit older than you, live in the north Pennines, so have to ride some reasonably serious hills and manage fine on a 35 inch bottom gear (30x23 on a triple - I like closely stacked cassettes). Giant's website lists a Defy 2 triple as an option, with a 12-27 cassette for an even lower bottom gear (28 inches).

Looks like the compact double on the Defy 2 will do the job you outline, but you could have the extra option of a Defy 2 triple and the reassurance that you will get up any hill you're ever ikely to encounter.

Aspman77

I live in a upland area with some very steep and some very long hills.

Not fit yet and I'm very glad I've got a triple.

keef66

I'm a fairly fit fifty something living in gently undulating Suffolk, and I am occasionally grateful for the 30 x 25 bottom gear on my triple.

I like a close ratio cassette and I think I'd spend too much time swapping chainrings on a compact double

desweller

I love my triple. Without it I would never have had the satisfaction of riding past all the walkers on Bushcombe Lane in last year's Circuit Of The Cotswolds, and I am sure that I will be making heavy use of it this weekend on the Forest Of Dean Spring Classic!

a900ss

I bought my first road bike recently and wondered to get a triple or a compact. i worked out the gearing and the difference between the lowest gearing from my bike (a compact) vs the same Trek with a triple was only 5%, ie for every 19 revolutions I would make on my compact in it's lowest geat, the triple would need 20 revolutions in it's lowest gear.

I felt that this level of difference was negligable so went for the compact.

Good luck.

PH5121

Thanks for the advice chaps, it is much appreciated!

the_prophet

ive recently (8 weeks ago) bought my first road bike, coming from a mtb background, and despite having not ridden a bike for over a year, the double on my defy 2 is more than enough. ive not touched the smallest gear. i live in bristol so there are hills around but, i just dont need it.

i'd go for the double.

fungus_the_muffin_man

I bought a triple originally as I wanted to have that granny incase I needed it. I did at first however 6 mths later I got a new bike with a compact double. I've never needed the extra gears since the compact is fine. I don't think when I first started I would have coped on a compact though. So was glad I had the triple.

When I ride the bike with the triple now I just don't use the smallest cog and the crank any more

markos1963

A triple will give you the option of riding anywhere so it is a good choice for a beginner, also you can fit a nice close ratio cassette and still get low enough to spin up those Dales.

crapchicken

I personally wouldn't bother with a triple - I have one on my Marin Mill Valley hack bike, I've done almost 4000 miles on it now and I only ever use the big ring, going up and down the cassette.

However I do live in the fens and the only hills we have here are the flyovers over the A47 :shock:

I've just bought a lovely Cannondale Six Carbon with a compact double but haven't ridden it yet. To be honest I'd be quite happy with just a single front ring and a cassette - does anyone know if this is do-able???

Good luck with the road bike though - I love the roads, racing bikes actually arouse me somewhat

SDF64

For me the whole triple or double chainset thing is a bit like the Shimano/Campag/SRAM debate. It's a matter or personal preference.

I run a triple on my winter bike as it helps with climbing the steeper climbs in the saddle on wet days, but my summer bike has a compact which is all that you should need if you have any reasonable level of fitness.

Of the two i'd say i much prefer the compact.

Rich Hcp

It is personal pref.

I came from a MTB, and it is a familiar aset up

I also have a weak left leg and appreciate the mechanical assistance!

As you get in to the season, so to speak, the need for the granny wheel lessens, but I'n glad of it often enough.

MikeWW

Got a compact double and never had to use the lowest gears. Can't see the point in a triple-would be quicker walking than being in the granny ring

stfc1

A triple will give you bigger gears as well as smaller, remember. So you basically get a standard 53-39, which would be big enough to race on, with a granny ring to help with particularly long or steep climbs.

As for the idea that it would be quicker to walk than be in the granny ring, that's only true if you pedal the same cadence in that ring as you would on a 34/36/39. The truth is that on a 30-tooth chainring you can still use the full range of your rear cassette to vary your pace, rather than being stuck in the highest gear for the whole climb.

Triples will never be seen as cool, but they are very effective if you can only afford one bike and you want it to do everything.

moffmcewan

i am also a beiginner like yourself and bought a Giant defy 3 (yellow one) three days ago as my first road bike, i rode the 3.5, 3 and 2 my LBS advised me to get the 3 over the 3.5 as the frame is better but told me not to get hung up on the tiagra sora debate as a beginner and to go for the 3 as i can upgrade mt parts over time to make it the same as the 2. my budget was £500ish but he done me the defy 3 for £600 with a helmet upto £50 free and a free service.........just waiting to pick it up now!

PH5121

Again, thanks for taking the time to offer me advice.

I nipped into my local Halfords at lunch time to look at Kiddies car seats and had a look at the bikes there. There was a Boardman with Tiagra and 105 kit for under £700. If the double set up is okay for a novice such as me that looks like a better bike for the money than the Defy 2.

I think I am going to have to have a change of plan!

skyd0g

PH5121 wrote:

Again, thanks for taking the time to offer me advice.

I nipped into my local Halfords at lunch time to look at Kiddies car seats and had a look at the bikes there. There was a Boardman with Tiagra and 105 kit for under £700. If the double set up is okay for a novice such as me that looks like a better bike for the money than the Defy 2.

I think I am going to have to have a change of plan!

That will be the Boardman Comp - an excellent bike, which uses a compact set-up. Very good value for money.

Mettan

PH5121 wrote:

If the double set up is okay for a novice such as me that looks like a better bike for the money than the Defy 2.

I think I am going to have to have a change of plan!

If you predominantly ride on the flat and/or are already very bike-fit, then you might be ok with a Double - if however you're planning on doing a very hilly Sportive such as the DLMC or the Fred (or even less challenging ones), then you might have a significantly harder time with a double, as opposed to a Triple or Compact (with 27/28/32 at back) - many new riders buy doubles then find that they "can't get uphill" (with miles in the legs) and end up paying out for a conversion to a Compact. Even on a 6 or 7 % gradient after 40/50 miles many new/leisure riders might be thinking "wish I had a 34/27, as opposed to this blinkin double". Many on here have gone through the Double to Compact process (with the attendant cost/hassle). The Boardman is a nice machine though

stratcat

I'm a pretty fit 40 year old. I've cycled for a while and I bought my first road bike last year. I went for a triple as its a bit hilly around these parts (south cumbria).
I am very glad I did, there are a few hills that I could do with a slightly lower low gear.

I'm of the opinion that its better to have it and not use it than not have it and need it. Also as another poster has said after you have been out all day and you hit that big hill and there's not much left in the tank you'll be glad of that lower gear.

just my 2p worth

louismichaels

There's always lots of hotly contested debate re Triples:Doubles (inc Compacts).
A triple allows you to do everything. Racing, touring, flat-downhill-uphill.
Some people think they don't look so nice. Hmmm.
Some people think that you just shouldn't need them. Hmmm.
They may weigh a little more, but they're just really versatile.
I'm a fan, and they certainly allow you to 'spin' regardless of the gradient (therefore looking after your knees) and also allow you to have just-one-more-gear to drop down to on the last steep hill of a long, long ride.

teulk

Ive just got my first road bike, having had a MTB bike prior i pondered for ages about the "double" or "triple" thing.
I decided on going down the compact route and ive had no problems so far, sure going up hills is a bit harder but i will get ffitter and they will become easier. From what ive experienced so far the compact will get me up all but the steepest of hills but even they will become acheivable as i get fitter i guess.

If your going to ride loads of hills then i would say get a triple but if not then a compact is more than adequate, one thing to think of is "how many times have you used your granny gear on your MTB" - i actually rarely used mine.

Paul32uk

stfc1 wrote:

A triple will give you bigger gears as well as smaller, remember. So you basically get a standard 53-39, which would be big enough to race on, with a granny ring to help with particularly long or steep climbs.

Not true. The ones I looked at all had the same size large ring! the triple was 50/39/30 and the compact was 50/34.

Personally I got a compact and I find the lowest gear of that setup OK to get me up whatever I have tried to climb so far. Off to try and get up a 25% hill in the new forest this weekend so we'll be seeing if I should have opted for a triple after all

jugglingphil

After years of commuting, last year I got my first road bike (from ebay) it has a double 53-42, 13-26

I recently got a new bike (for weekend rides) with a triple, 52/39/30, 12-25 rear. The compact equivalent is 50/34, 12-25.

Personnally I'm glad I've a triple. If people look at me, shake their head and think I'm not a pro, well they are right!
On the triple I can now look at hills and know I'll be able to have a chance of getting up them, on the double its much much harder! Maybe a compact would also do the same.

Rockhopper

I wish i'd had the option for a triple when i bought my road bike, it'd make it far more usable considering i live in Derbyshire. As it is i replaced the standard 36 tooth small ring with a 34 which helps a bit.

danowat

Dumb newbie Q alert.....

What the hell is a "compact"?, I understand double and triple (2 chainrings, 3 chainrings), but can't envisage a "compact"?

TommyEss

I'm a lot fitter than I used to be (I've lost 25% of my body weight over the last year to take me to a very average 70ish kg) and I'm still glad I've got a triple.

The Defy range is very good too - just watch for the mudguards they offer, as they're a bit pish - if you're after a proper winter bike, i.e. one that will take full mudguards, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.

As a road bike it's very good though. Plenty of class in the frame to upgrade from the 3.5 spec before you need to shell out for a new bike.

Radioactiveman

danowat wrote:

Dumb newbie Q alert.....

What the hell is a "compact"?, I understand double and triple (2 chainrings, 3 chainrings), but can't envisage a "compact"?

http://www.bikecyclingreviews.com/Compa ... n_set.html

A compact is a double with different ratios to the "normal 53/39 .Compact is usually 50/34 ,50/36 .