Compact Vs Triple (Again....)

solboy

If you were specifying a new bike would you go compact or triple?

I ride a compact now (50-34T with 12-25 Cassette) and find its generally all i need. Did two charity rides this year both of which incorporated some pretty tough climbs and when i was participating in these rides i wished i had gone for a triple!

Also went on holiday to a very hilly Devon this year and again wished i had a triple.

So the point is generally a compact is fine but from time to time i clealry need a triple. The guy in my LBS has warned about chain rub and exessive wear on components with triple set ups and personally i feel a bit of a wuss opting for a triple. Is a compact with a 11-28 or 12-27 cassette a better option?

What would you do???

father_jack

No problem with chain rub, once they're setup..and you do have index trim (half a click) I'd go for triple everytime...good having it than not having it. Only 80grams? heavier so not a big deal :P

running 53/42/30 / 12-23
and 52/42/30 / 13-26

ratsbeyfus

I went riding in France this summer - Ventoux and the Alps - I would've walked if it wasn't for the triple. I guess it all depends upon your fitness and the hills you want to climb.

mattsy666

A triple convinces you you can't cycle ... Once your momentum goes you don't get it back ... Having done rosedale chimney in both and only made it up in the double I know what I would choose ... one oncoming vehicle and it's over ...

My compact is 50/36 and it's spot on ...

Having watched my gf fall over sideways on a 30/28 but then manage easily on a 34/26 it shows what momentum can do ...

I am the god of hell fire

Compact 50/34 with a 25 cog on the back for me

Im not a cycling god however have never felt the need for a triple

I ride extensively in the Peak and often do 15% climbs, rarely 20-25% briefly

I rode Tourmalet this summer on it too
17km with the last 13 often nudging 9-10% and I never ever wished for different gearing

I also second the comment about triples making forward progress s--l--o--wwwwwww

For sure you need to stand up and mash it sometimes but a compacts all I personally need

Cheers

EKIMIKE

solboy wrote:

wished i had a triple.

Or wished you weren't riding up a hill?

Thing is, hills never become easy you just go at a faster/slower speed. (Any gear inch beardies out there, spare me the calculations, you know what i mean).

Clearly 34/25 isn't the 'appropriate' gear for you. I would however suggest that somwhere between 34/26 and 34/28 will probably be right for you. Not saying triples are bad, just there's probably a viable solution in chaging the cassette which is considerably cheaper.

I don't mean this in a boasting sort of way, but the lowest gear i use on my MTB is 34/28 and i find that can get me up some pretty severe gradients. Bearing in mind how heavy my MTB is and how much more favourably efficient the road tyre/road surface interface is, i'd say a 34/28 should get you up anything. And i'm not exactly built to go uphill as it goes.

porker33

I had 50/34 with 12-25 on my last bike,,,,,current bike has 50/34 with 11-28.

Now I make a point of not using the easiest 2 cogs on the small ring unless I absolutely have to.
I have of course tried them on 25% hills...I prefer to know they are there if i actually need them to get up a hill as a last resort.

I would think this is all the gearing you would ever need and much prefer this arrangement over the potential set up headaches and additional weight of a triple.

bendertherobot

porker33 wrote:

I had 50/34 with 12-25 on my last bike,,,,,current bike has 50/34 with 11-28.

Now I make a point of not using the easiest 2 cogs on the small ring unless I absolutely have to.
I have of course tried them on 25% hills...I prefer to know they are there if i actually need them to get up a hill as a last resort.

I would think this is all the gearing you would ever need and much prefer this arrangement over the potential set up headaches and additional weight of a triple.

Same here. Much nicer, easier and more aesthetically pleasing.

spootnick

When it comes to choosing gears I would take my parameters into account (cadence, VAM) and terrain I ride in. Based on this I would choose cranks and cassette preferring double but taking triple if double has to high gears.

EKIMIKE

Seems to me the only reasons in the past to go for a triple as opposed to compact was the limited availability (and possibly therefore cost) of compact gearing.

Currently though, compacts are as easily sourceable as triples and standard doubles. I mean if you get SRAM Apex or use a Shimano MTB rear mech then you can get a gear range which (as far as i'm aware) matches a triple.

Chris James

bendertherobot wrote:

Same here. Much nicer, easier and more aesthetically pleasing.

I think a standard double is much more aesthetically spleasing than the huge drop between rings on a compact - abit hard work on steep hills though! A 34 tooth ring is a granny ring in all but name, so compacts effectively just miss out the middle ring of a triple.

Incidentally, standard road triples have roughly the same gearing range as compacts, just laid out slightly differently, so not sure why compact users on here are saying that a triple makes you slow.

I am have used both triples and compacts and can get up Pennine and Welsh hills on both.

fingerfun

solboy wrote:

So the point is generally a compact is fine but from time to time i clealry need a triple. The guy in my LBS has warned about chain rub and exessive wear on components with triple set ups and personally i feel a bit of a wuss opting for a triple. Is a compact with a 11-28 or 12-27 cassette a better option?

Get what YOU want! You say you clearly need a triple then get one - you're not a wuss for getting what you need. I use a 53/39, 12-25 because it suits me and I can get up hills on 39x25 ok but as the years tick by and I feel *I* need a compact or a triple then I'll get one. Personally if I come across another cyclist running a triple I don't think wuss; better we're all having fun on a bike than not?!

TMR

fingerfun wrote:

Personally if I come across another cyclist running a triple I don't think wuss; better we're all having fun on a bike than not?!

Nice attitude, and exactly right IMHO

huuregeil

I have a compact (as well as a triple and a standard double) and don't see the point of a compact. Either use a regular double or a triple. The "momentum" argument, fair enough, there is some benefit to getting stuck in with a slightly hard gear on a steep hill, you do certainly go faster, but this completely ignores the fact that a triple doesn't magically give you way lower gears, it depends on the cassette. E.g. 30-23 is only fractionally lower than 34-25 or 39-29. Roughly, 53/39 + 12-29, 50/34 + 11-25, and 53/42/30 + 12-23 give you the same gear range. The big difference is the closeness of the ratios - a triple in this situation is far preferable IMO.

Buckled_Rims

SRAM Apex should settle this argument of compact over a triple once and for all

jibberjim

EKIMIKE wrote:

Thing is, hills never become easy you just go at a faster/slower speed. (Any gear inch beardies out there, spare me the calculations, you know what i mean).

Sure they do. There are hills which require me to go up them at 450watts on a double, which I can go up at 320 watts with a compact. The difference between the two is immeasurably easy. On a TT the 320 watt would be the correct approach. In a road race of course you go up however fast you have to, but 300 would be much preferred if I'm given a choice.

calvjones

I have both, with simiar gear ranges (50/34 12/27 11 speed and 52/42/30 12/23 9 speed).

The compact looks nicer, and has plenty of gears, but the triple is definitely a nicer front change.. the big jump 50-34 makes me shudder if it has to be done under pressure.

Not sure that the 'momentum' think matters; I tend to only use the 30-ring as a bale out.

Honestly, the differences are minimal. However, the Man wants us to use compacts, so if you are looking to buy a nice campag triple, hurry up

TomBombadil

For what it's worth,

I have Titanium Compact , Alloy Triple and Carbon Standard. On my all round trainer, the titanium, I use the compact. I have three wheel sets, Hed Carbons, Ksyriums and Shamals and a range of Cassettes with the biggest cog on one being a 29 (Yep all Campag).

So with the triple and the 29 you can get up most things........

So what? Surely it's about what you are trying to achieve. If I am doing a sportive I probably need most flexibility but it depends on the course. If it's flattish I want the standard chainset.

But If I was to only choose one and had to choose it would have to be the compact as it really does everything well with a slight loss of range in the gearing.

Momentum isn't really an issue on a 25% climb where you may head for a triple - almost everyone will be mashing except those under 70Kg and even they will be all out and probably standing.

In the UK it seems to be about how steep a hill you can climb rather than the pleasure of actually spinning and riding. They don't put ridiculous climbs of the TdF and 12% is usually the upper limit.

I used to enter the UK sportives with the steep climbs in and did OK but know that as I am well over 70Kg the physics means I will never do much better and always end up getting my arse kicked.
Now I'm just more selective about what riding I do especially if I have to pay an entrance fee and even more finicky about which bike and gears to select.

Anyway, don't worry you will always end up hurting if it's steep.

Good luck - Tom

Tom

de_sisti

The gearing on my three bikes are:

50/34/26 with a 12 - 28 cassette (9 speed) lightweight summer bike
48/34/26 with a 12 - 28 cassette (9 speed) summer audax bike
46/34/24 with a 12 - 28 cassette (9 speed) winter audax bike

Compact and triple all in one. :!:

Hoopdriver

Thanks for the posts on your gearing De Sisti - I am building up a light tourer and was thinking of 48-34-26 for the triple and since all the triples I seem to see have 10 tooth drop between outer and middle, I'd been wondering how well a 14-tooth drop would work. I couldn't see why it wouldn't work, but nobody seemed to be going for more than 10, or 12 tops. I have 46-36-24 on my expedition bike.

I assume yours works ok?

father_jack

48-34-26 is a bit low for touring, I've got 52/42/30 / 13-26. In first gear I can easily climb any hill around here. 48/32/26 is MTB gearing? which is way too low, and you may run out of gears when going at speed.

Hoopdriver

Depends what speed you want to go, doesn't it? Have you actually done much touring? I have. Lots. Africa, Asia, Australia, America, Europe and Britain and not once, not ever, have I felt the need of a 50- or 52-tooth front gear.

chill123

Buckled_Rims wrote:

SRAM Apex should settle this argument of compact over a triple once and for all

can you please elaborate? what is it that SRAM Apex is doing to settle the argumnet?

de_sisti

Hoops,

I can honestly say that I have never had a problem shifting between the front chainrings.
I know that for my ability and fitness, a triple is the way to go.

I was recently in France and noticed lots of riders (on high quality bikes) with triples. I didn't
check what ratios they had, however, there doesn't appear to be the hang-up that lots of
poseurs over here have about triples.

Hoopdriver

THanks. Good to hear. I agree, triples are very worthwhile and like you, I can't understand the hang up about them over here. I am quite fit, and have lots of miles behind me, but all the same I'd just as soon enjoy the journey and the scenery when I'm touring, rather than strive to perform to the cheers of some imaginary audience as I wrestle with a hill in 54x11

huuregeil

Hoopdriver,

I think it would be fine however I'd just caution one thing. Having tinkered with a friend's touring triple setup, some front mechs, notably road-going Shimano models are quite contoured and might be quite tricky to setup if the contour bulge coincides with your 34 tooth ring. (Which it might, given the relatively 14t large jump). If that makes sense!

Second question is why the 34 and not a 36? Having a 34-26 will give you quite a bit of overlap on the lower end. Other than that, 48 on the top and a 26 on the bottom is a good touring setup.

Hoopdriver

Thanks for the advice. I'm using an XT front mech and so I think I should be okay. I've since looked up the Shimano tech specs page and they recommend a 12 tooth minimum drop outer to middle for the XT.

I take your point on the duplication of the lower range gears with the 34 - you're quite right, and in fact I bounced 34 and 36 around in my head quite a while. In the end I plumped for 34 because, while I like triples, and would always have one on a tourer, in practice I tend not to use the granny ring much except as a bail out - most of my riding will be done on either 48 or 34, so essentially a slightly lower geared (or more compact!) compact, with a hole card to play if thing get really steep and gritty.

Buckled_Rims

chill123 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

SRAM Apex should settle this argument of compact over a triple once and for all

can you please elaborate? what is it that SRAM Apex is doing to settle the argumnet?

It's the new groupset from SRAM. It features a long cage RD so the rear cassette can go up to 32 cogs (or even 34?). So, you can have 34/50 front and 12/32 rear.

quick calc for lowest ratio shows:

triple: 30fr/27rear = 29.3 gear inches
Apex 34fr/32rear= 28 gear inches

Chris James

Buckled_Rims wrote:

chill123 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

SRAM Apex should settle this argument of compact over a triple once and for all

can you please elaborate? what is it that SRAM Apex is doing to settle the argumnet?

It's the new groupset from SRAM. etc

Surely it is the worst of all worlds?

A massive jump between chain ring sizes and huge gaps all over the cassette? I thought the whole point about 9 speed moving to 10 speed and now 11 was that the gears could be closely packed to allow a uniform cadence.

Buckled_Rims

Chris James wrote:

Surely it is the worst of all worlds?

A massive jump between chain ring sizes and huge gaps all over the cassette? I thought the whole point about 9 speed moving to 10 speed and now 11 was that the gears could be closely packed to allow a uniform cadence.

I don't fancy it, but read the snozzle:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/sram-apex-group-review-first-look-25053