Double?? Triple??

Paul057

One of the bikes i'm considering buying as my first proper road bike is the Focus Cayo from wiggle. I've noticed that i can get the special edition triple for not much more cash. Am i right in thinking that the only difference between the double and triple is that the triple has a wider range of gears? I'm thinking this can only be a good thing? Are there any disadvantages?

Thelittlesthobo

I went for the triple on my Trek. I have a really big problem with my knee at present so i deemed this would help. TBH the inner/granny ring has never been used and if ordering now i would go for a compact.

The only downside is the weight but we are talking very small amounts so if you feel more comfortable with triple then go for it. Its there if you need it

bdu98252

The triple is heavier however if you live in a place like the lake district in cumbria then you will be thankfull for the 30 on the front and the up to 28 if you are running shimano on the rear. I think the best solution at the minute for the hillier parts of the world is a SRAM set up with the apex rear derailer.

CRAIGO5000

Weight is one, simplicity is another and there are probably more factors from the more experienced riders out there.

I've had a fast hybrid with triple crank and a huge Shimano mega-range on the cassette and only ever used it once on an off-road grassed incline that was extremely steep. You'd have never of taken a road bike on that terrain in the first place. I think if you plan on tackling some serious road hills then go with the triple, if you're riding mainly road with the odd hill then go with a double.

My Allez has a double and I'm glad it's not a triple as it barely sees the smaller ring as it is. A granny ring would be silly just sat there doing nothing.

MikeWW

It really depends how unfit you and whether you are likely to be doing any touring.
A compact get you up just about anything

8JTS

As you are from St.Helens have you tried Thatto Cycles, you will find they give great service and fantastic prices, I purchased my first bike from Winstanlys in Wigan who were helpful, but just upgraded to a Scott CR1 Pro from Thatto Heath cycles and got it for a price that was far cheaper than anywhere else I looked......(no I am not connected I just like to get things at a great price and hate thinking I could have got a better deal.....plus if it goes wrong they are on your doorstep)

Paul057

8JTS wrote:

As you are from St.Helens have you tried Thatto Cycles, you will find they give great service and fantastic prices, I purchased my first bike from Winstanlys in Wigan who were helpful, but just upgraded to a Scott CR1 Pro from Thatto Heath cycles and got it for a price that was far cheaper than anywhere else I looked......(no I am not connected I just like to get things at a great price and hate thinking I could have got a better deal.....plus if it goes wrong they are on your doorstep)

I've seen them on line and i keep threatening to go in and have a chat and a look around. At the minute i've just bought a cheap second hand Carrera to get me started and i'm thinking of taking it in there to get it serviced (i don't think it's set up very well). It's good to know they're a decent shop. Thanks for the tip.

Alibran

Since you say this is your first proper road bike, presumably you're not planning to compete at a level where the small extra weight of a triple would make any difference. For that reason, I'd say get the triple.

You might hardly ever use it but .....

Tired at the end of a long ride?
Recovering from injury and need to take it easy?
Come across a steeper hill than you're used to?

Those are all reasons why I've used the "granny ring" on my triple, and on those occasions, I've been very glad of it.

FoldingJoe

I must admit, when I bought my road bike I never even considered a triple.

I'm nearly 17 stone, and live in Cornwall, so it can quite hilly around here, so I went with a compact.

Never had any issues thus far getting up hills with that. I don't know, it might just be me, but triples look weird on road bikes!!!

niblue

When I've had triple road bikes I've had problems keeping the front shifting working well across all 3 rings (something I've never had an issue with on mountain bikes) so prefer a compact double and a decent range (e.g. 11:28) cassette.

bobgfish

Got a bike with a Triple. Wanted one with a double and didn’t know what Std vs compact meant then, having ridden and raced with a 53/42 when I was very young. It cost too much to change the triple so lived with it. (Although this year the new model comes with a compact) Only ever used the 30 tooth once but that did mean I completed a sportive without walking and there were plenty others walking. I changed the rear cassette to a 11-25 and I've found that it's enough to get up anything. What I like over this rather than a compact is that the gears are very close together and you can always find one that suits. I dislike riding my MTB on the road as the rear cogs are too far apart and find it difficult to get into a rhythm.

Ultimately choose the bike you like and don't get too hung up about Compact or Triple. If your racing then a STD is probably the go unless doing lots of hills.

Chris James

As above, triples don't really have a wider gear range than a compact.

Negative points of triple are slightly extra weight, larger Q factor, possiblly more difficult to set up (I have never had a problem on mine), poss slower shifts for long cage derailleurs (I have a short cage on mine and some compacts come with long cage too)

Positive points of triple are the closely matched gears, in particular the avoidance f a massive change in gearing from a 50 to 34 tooth chain ring. My triple is 52/42/30 so effectively the small chainring on a compact is a granny ring, so arguiably too low for general use. On the other hand, a 42 tooth chain ring is great for rolling countryside.

I have had triples and compacts. I prefer triples for hilly areas like the Pennines. For flatter / rolling countryside I think I would opt for a standard double rather than a compact.

Ezy Rider

i say go for the 34/50 double compact, the hills to warrant a triple are few and far between

Essex Man

I say triple or standard double, but if you are a new rider then a triple.

I hate compacts as the 34T is useless for anything but hills (whereas at 39T ring is fine for flat riding and hills).

You can have a nice close ratio 12-25 (or 12-23) cassette at the back, and still have low gears for big hills if you want.

IMO this is a better set-up than a 34T chainring with a 11-28 cassette - which still offers the same low gearing but with worse spacing between gears, and a useless high gearing for flat riding.

Chris James

Essex Man wrote:

I say triple or standard double, but if you are a new rider then a triple.

I hate compacts as the 34T is useless for anything but hills (whereas at 39T ring is fine for flat riding and hills).

You can have a nice close ratio 12-25 (or 12-23) cassette at the back, and still have low gears for big hills if you want.

IMO this is a better set-up than a 34T chainring with a 11-28 cassette - which still offers the same low gearing but with worse spacing between gears, and a useless high gearing for flat riding.

This is pretty much my opinion too, although compacts benefit from 'simplicity' and low Q factor.

Certainly a choice between compact and triple shouldn't be made on the RANGE of gears as they are pretty much identical to each other. Many compact riders seem to say that they don't 'need' a triple - but actually may be geared lower than a triple with a closely packed rear cassette.

Triple and compacts have virtually identical gear ranges in practice, the difference is how though gears are located and can be accessed.

jomoj

i have a triple on one bike and a compact on the other. For looks and 'weight' (like it really makes a difference...) the compact wins but for functionality, the triple is better if you want the wide range. On the compact I often find I'm double shifting to stay in a good gear and avoid a bad chainline but on the triple, the 'useful' gears are around the middle of the cassette on the 39t ring

Shifting is crisper on the compact because you have a bit less chain to wrap up but it's never been a problem.

Berk Bonebonce

Ezy Rider wrote:

i say go for the 34/50 double compact, the hills to warrant a triple are few and far between

The range of available gears is not the only issue. A compact can offer a wide range of ratios, but they usually mean that you only have 20 gears within that range. With compacts, you can spend a lot of time trying to find the right gear.

Triples usually offer a range that is a bit wider than a compact, but you 10 extra gears. With more gears, there is more chance of finding the right gear.

ForumNewbie

I have a triple on my Audax light tourer and was thinking of going for a Secteur Elite with a compact for my next bike. The gearing ratio goes even lower than my Audax as the Secteur has a 32t low gear at the back. I'm not sure now about going for the Compact as there seems to be a lot of negative comments about trying to find the right gear etc.

Although you appear to have an extra 10 gears on a triple, there are about 10 of the 30 gear combinations that I don't use (and don't really need) - i.e. in the big ring at the front I only use the top 5 gears at the back and when climbing in the granny ring at the front I would only use the lowest 4 or 5 gears at the back before moving up to the middle ring. This also ensures that I don't strech the chain.

carl_p

I own a triple and a compact and the compact wins hands down. Looks better, shifts crisper, far far easier to maintain. The only time I've ever used the granny ring is when I've shifted to it in error.

jomoj

Regarding potential range, triples typically come with a 30T inner but they can take a chainring as small as 24T if you want to go lower or use a very close spaced cassette. The smallest ring you can fit on a compact is 34.

One of the issues with 50/34 compacts is the big 16 T jump between the rings that means shifting 3 at the back when you shift up or down to find the adjacent gear.

A more sensible setup for loads of people would be something like 46/34. I think SRAM do the apex with this option

I don't get the maintenance issues people talk about having with triples... its one extra part over a double. How much harder is that to deal with?

Chris James

Carl_P wrote:

I own a triple and a compact and the compact wins hands down. Looks better, shifts crisper, far far easier to maintain. The only time I've ever used the granny ring is when I've shifted to it in error.

In that case I am curious why you bought a compact chainset rather than a standard double?