What made you change to a compact or Double from a Triple?

newburb_1968

A big dilemma I am having?
I am currently on a triple and in the process of purchasing a new bike, however what to know what made you change from a triple to a double or compact?

I very rarely go into the small ring, however when I face a fairly steep climb I tend to drop straight down to it out of the sake of it!

I want to get a double or compact but weary that I'll be walking up hills rather than riding them, is this the case or do you get on with it.
Do you get more tired out, does your flat speed increase?
How do I go about simulating what it would be like, by using my current triple chainset?
How did you deal with it?

If I get it wrong is there a lot of changes I need to make to the bike? To take it to a triple?

MikeWW

Was riding a compact but moved to a double-really isn't a problem infact far more useful transition and spread of gears
A compact really gives you as low a gearing as you could possibly need
Trying avoiding the granny ring for a while and see how you get on

garryc

My first road bike was a triple, I wasn't really too clued up when I bought it, but was greatefull of the low gears as I'm not much cop at getting up hills.

Last year I bought a nice posh carbon framed bike and decided to go with a compact instead. I created a spreadsheet with all the gear ratios in to see how they compared. A compact with an 11-28 cassette resulted in me loosing only the very lowest gear from my tripple which I very rarely, if ever, used.

An 11-25 cassette would have ment losing only the 2 lowest gears.

My new bike was much lighter to start with and the lighter weight of the compact over the triple helped as well. I now find that I very rarely use the lowest gear on my compact.

Bozman

Always used 53/39 - 12/25, but last year i put a 50/34 - 11/23 on one bike because i'm getting old and lazy, that ratio just gives me that little bit extra in the peak with losing much on flatter ground. Nine times out of ten i still use a standard chainset.

When i first started i struggled with a standard chainset in the peak, but i got used to it and i never really had an issue after a few months of pushing myself and seeking out steeper climbs, i can't remember compacts being around 20 yrs ago and i just took it that that was it and i got on with it.

JD_76

Purists sneer at the compact (Granny ring) but the reality is it gives you the ability to ride up almost any hill.

Just depends on your fitness level, if your someone like Mark Cavendish the double ring is probably like the granny ring, if you get what im trying to say.

Phixion

I'm glad my bike only came with one option - triple.

Getting into biking again with my below average fitness level has been hard, I can't imagine how much walking I'd be doing with the granny ring.

If like me you are overweight, unfit and wanting to get fit through cycling I suggest you get a triple.

unixnerd

I live somewhere very hilly and hardly ever need the granny ring on my triple. But when I do need it I'm damn glad it's there!

Peddle Up!

JD_76 wrote:

Purists sneer at the compact...

Purists seem to sneer at everything; compacts, bags under the saddle, pump clipped to the frame, helmets with a peak etc., etc.

I'm just glad I don't meet many.

rolf_f

JD_76 wrote:

Purists sneer at the compact (Granny ring) but the reality is it gives you the ability to ride up almost any hill.

Purists are funny though. True, as Bozman says, perhaps we used to be a bit tougher. Take my 1980 Raleigh Record Ace - the lowest gears are 42-28 (1 to 1.5) and my mates 1990 Peugeot (a Triathlon to be fair) is even worse with 42-24 (1 to 1.75). So the modern compact with 34-25 (1 too 1.36) seems soft. The standard 39-25 is 1 to 1.56 so close enough to the Raleigh but a bit of a big girls blouse compared to the Pug.

But the Raleigh weighs a lot more than a modern bike even though it is full 531 Reynolds. Funny you don't hear the purists complaining about lightweight frames. Surely, if they don't like the modern softy gears, why are they ok with modern softy frames?!

Ultimately, you probably ought to be able to get up pretty much anything on a standard. Once. The compact will let you keep doing it.

Get a compact. If you want, you can always get a slightly bigger cassette to cover you for the really tough routes.

unixnerd

I think the difference is that in days of yore (when I was a lad) my 10 speed Raleigh had a much higher lowest gear than my current bikes. This meant that on really steep hills I was out of the saddle with a very low cadence. These days I'm seated with a much higher cadence.

You can see this on old films of Eddy Merckx on big climbs with a much lower cadence than today's pros.

nakita222

Learn to spin, if the pros use a 53-39, and they produce more power than you, then why do the fu<k do you need the same gearing. Get yourself a compact, and learn how to spin, instead of grinding. :evil: :x :twisted: :oops:

kettrinboy

When i eventually do replace my Scott CR1 (triple) i will go for a standard double, ive only used the granny ring about 3 or 4 times in 8600 miles and ive revisited those hills where i previously used it, which are in the 15-20% range and got up on 39x25 albeit out of the saddle, but in my local riding area there are no long steep hills,certainly nothing where you gain more than about 100-110 metres elevation in one hit,but i would have a 27T cassette handy in case i was to stick the bike in the car and take it somewhere properly hilly.

Slack

nakita222 wrote:

Learn to spin, if the pros use a 53-39, and they produce more power than you, then why do the fu<k do you need the same gearing. Get yourself a compact, and learn how to spin, instead of grinding. :evil: :x :twisted: :oops:

What he said.

Spinning keeps the power up.

secretsam

Phixion wrote:

I'm glad my bike only came with one option - triple.

Getting into biking again with my below average fitness level has been hard, I can't imagine how much walking I'd be doing with the granny ring.

If like me you are overweight, unfit and wanting to get fit through cycling I suggest you get a triple.

^+1 - I live in Bucks and we have hills, triple is a godsend for dragging my fat, lardy ar5e up the hills

All this "ooh look at me, I'm such a real man I run an old fashioned 42 inner to a 21" is a knee op waiting to happen :twisted:

vorsprung

I want to get a double or compact but weary that I'll be walking up hills rather than riding them, is this the case or do you get on with it?
Do you get more tired out, does your flat speed increase?
How do I go about simulating what it would be like, by using my current triple chainset?

Most compacts will give a very similar bottom gear to a triple. So in the case of climbing a very steep hill they will be pretty much the same

Flat speed depends on your aerobic fitness, provided the gears are almost correct should be fine.

If you want to compare the gear ratios of a new compact vs your old triple look at a gear inch calculator

The triple has the advantage that it gives more available gears over the range
The compact is cheaper

Both are equally easy to set up, the weight differences are negligible and both are equally reliable