Triple, Double or Compact
zippy483
Posts: 104
Good afternoon all
This new to cycling thing is getting a little confusing
I was looking at puchaising a bike with a triple chainring, it's hilly around here and I thought it would probably aid in getting up them but I've had a bit of conflicting advice, from oooh you don't want a triple get a compact instead to oh no who told you to get a compact standard is the way to go I'm sure you've all been there.
So what are the relative merits of each other than triples being easier to pedal up hill
This new to cycling thing is getting a little confusing
I was looking at puchaising a bike with a triple chainring, it's hilly around here and I thought it would probably aid in getting up them but I've had a bit of conflicting advice, from oooh you don't want a triple get a compact instead to oh no who told you to get a compact standard is the way to go I'm sure you've all been there.
So what are the relative merits of each other than triples being easier to pedal up hill
0
Posts
Triples are probably on their way out though with the introduction of gears like SRAM Apex. The rear gearing (which is typically 12-26 or so) goes up to 12-34. While using a compact, this gives the gearing distribution of a triple. So if in doubt, go for that.
I cant think of any hills in the UK that you cant get up on a compact though.
Still happy with it 3 years on. I do find I spend most of my time in the middle chainring, but it's nice to have the others available at times. Then again, I do ride solo, so I don't have to worry about juvenile comments from other riders.
And if I've got this right A compact would give me roughly the same range of gearing as a triple but with bigger jumps between gears?
Pros:
1. You get a wide gear range without sacrificing close ratio gears
2. The middle ring (39 or 40T) can cover the entire cassette, meaning you'll rarely need to change into the granny ring or big ring; I like this as I find front gear changes to not be the fastest thing in the world and I'm a man of little patience
3. Smaller jumps between chainrings and concomitantly smoother shifts at the front compared to a compact
4. Shifter compability with compact and double chainset
Cons:
1. Slight weight disadvantage
2. Conventionally-minded riders will look at you funny
Compact
Pros:
1. Shorter gears at the bottom end compared to a double
2. Shifter compability with double chainset
Cons:
1. Big gap between chainrings
2. Frequent changes at the front. Combined with the big gap this causes a lot of shuffling up and down the cassette too.
3. You can either have close ratios or a wide range of gears...not both
4. No bail out gear for touring or very steep hills
5. Proper tough riders will look at you funny for picking such a wimpy chainset and weather-beaten long-distance tourists will look at you funny for picking such an impractical chainset
Double
Pros:
1. It's what the pros ride, so it must be good, innit?
2. You won't run out of gears at the top end
3. Your bike will look awesome
4. You can bail out and fit a compact chainset without too much trouble if it all becomes too much!
5. No-one will look at you funny; you're 'ard, innit.
Cons:
1. It's what the pros ride, so it also needs fair levels of fitness
2. What's a granny gear?
3. Not compatible with switching to a triple
On Strava.{/url}
If you are going to carry a load then a triple is a must.
If you are young, fit and committed then you will get up most hills on a compact, especially with one of the wide range cassettes available. It may be worth considering this and then changing to a closer ranged cassette once you become a racing snake.
I triple offers a huge range of ratios.
The weight difference between a triple / double or compact is not massive, certainly not worth worrying about unless you are going to take racing seriously.
A triple has a much more severe chain line which prevents the use of all the available combinations and can lead to more chain wear and poorer shifting if gear selection discipline / skill is not developed. Not a major issue.
A triple with a 52/39/30 gives a normal double range and a bail out ring. On the long downhills you have a bigger gear than a compact and so are less likely to spin out.
You pays you money and takes your chance, if you are young and fit and are not going to tour with a load then I would go for the compact with a wide range cassette. If like me you want to enjoy 70+ mile rides at a comfortable pace and still get over the hill at the end then get the triple.
D
Some good points about getting the right spread of gears there though. I ride a triple on one bike so i can afford a high top end (which i only use once or twice on a ride) and a very low bottom end (again, just used on stupidly steep hills). I don't need all the options all the time, I can ride for long periods in the middle ring and I don't need to walk up hills.
Personally though, I don't mind some gear jumps which is why I also regularly ride two inherited 9 spd bikes with standard doubles, but with 13/28 at the back to get me up the lumps.
So in summary, a triple is probably best for you but I can see why lot's of folks would offer a counter opinion.
I have a triple on my commuter. Always loaded with a rack and bag with change of clothes, spare tube, tools and packed lunch. 99% of the time I'm in the middle chain ring and if this was the only front ring, I could live with that
On my weekend toy, it has a compact. Only been out once on it so far, but found it to be really good and suited to me. So much so I wish my commuter was a compact too :!:
I'm 46, 6ft 2" and weigh 16 stone and was a smoker for many years. Started cycling properly this August.
Lancashire Cycle Link Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/126682247491640/
If you can't then go for a triple if you haven't done much riding or you aren't very fit. You can be sure that a triple will be able to handle any hill. As your fitness improves you'll be able to assess what bike you need next. There are loads of gear options, and then some more.
My bike is a compact and it's fine for getting up the north downs, which have plenty of steep bits.
Anyway, grab a triple, get out there, and see you in twelve months asking what bike next, and then twelve months later, and then
http://www.trainerroad.com/career/pipipi
But if you're not so fit and live in the hills, a triple is probably the best, I suppose.
But Steve, with a triple you have as wide a range of gears as your mate Mr Compact, and the advantage of narrower gaps between ratios should you choose... You shouldn't be struggling with selecting the right ratio compared to a compact, that's exactly the problem I had when I went from a triple to a compact.
On Strava.{/url}
Well said. I'm 47, recently returned to roadiedom after a 15 year layoff (doing other sports, so pretty fit) and bought my first new bike in 20 years, yesterday.
I'm in training for my first Sportive, the Maratona Dles Dolomites in 7 months time, and plan to do various other sportives too. I also wish to seek out some of the scary climbs in the Lakes such as Wrynose pass etc as well as my local (hilly) terrain.
If you even envisage climbing steep hills only very occasionally, there is no good reason not to go triple, as eloquently described by my friends above. Apart from a very slight weight penalty (equivalent to a fraction of a bottle of water, let's be honest, boys and girls) it is a win-win situation, because you get all the gears that Mr Compact gets, but with closer spacing, arguably a more useful middle ring (40) and bail out gears for when you need them.
It made my new purchase a no-brainer, but for others a compact will be just fine. It's all about the likelihood of needing that handful of bailout gears, given your expected riding terrain and ability.
But it is, absolutely, 100% guaranteed, just a tiny bit about vanity, willy-waving, and a tribal testosterone mentality. have you ever heard of a girl having a self-consciousness issue with riding a triple chainset equipped bike? No, because their sense is not clouded by a pair of testicles.
Not big, necessarily, but bigger, definitely. I think the issue is one of unarguable maths, so not really censored at all.
The gaps on the front chainrings are wider on a typical compact than a typical triple. ie 50/34 vs 50/40/30.
Given that you can have the same rear cassette on either, a triple offers closer spacing by virtue of the front chainrings' relative sizes.
Or, put in another way, if you're happy with your lowest gear, say 34-28, then you can get the exact same lowest gear (in inches) on a triple and (of course by using a closer ratio rear cassette) have even more improved closer ratio spacing than your compact.
Or if, like me, you just like the idea of having the same high/mid gearing as a compact but closer ratios and the benefit of a set of bail out gears for very steep stuff, and don't feel your masculinity is in question, then you'd get a triple.
Win win.
PS you kind of agreed with me when you said you missed one rear cog size in your compact set up. With a triple you could run the same top and bottom gear and have the "missing" ratio available.
Des,
I understand what you mean. I don't want to hijack the tread, but I think my issue is that I find it difficult to pedal at high cadence for long periods. That means that in order to keep up with my compact colleague I select a higher gear, hence my struggle.
The other issue with the triple is that you can come to rely on the granny ring on the hills and this can maybe slow your progress in terms of pushing yourself to improve. I now make a conscious effort to use it only when absolutely necessary.
Steve
I ride with a puncture kit, mudguards and extra clothing at the moment, the weight issue isnt really anything to worry about.
What annoys me is the 'triple lets me spin up the hills' comments. If you are struggling on 34/27 then you will not spin up on 30/27. Get up a little easier yes but not spin up. You need a 26 or 28 ring for that.
You get the same sort of comments about spinning out on 50/12. These people need to learn to ride properly. I used to do RRs on 53/13 and TTs on 52/14 top gears. If you were spinning out then you should be saving energy and free wheeling.
I think the comments about more close ratio gears actually adds up to more duplicated (or close) gears and if you run 50/34 and 53/39/30 with a 12/27 cassette through a gear table you only really find 2 more gears, one higher and one lower. Any gear within about 3" is near enough the same to not notice. You normally get about 16 gears with a triple and 14 with a compact. Depends on cassettes used of course.
If only people would learn to use and understand gear tables they could sort this out easily for themselves.
I do not have an issue changing between rings at all and this only has to be done rarely .
I use smaller ring for climbs, then onto big ring and have 9 gears to choose with only one tooth difference.
It is better to keep ther rear teeth closer together as they have the biggest impact on gaps in gears, wellmore so with small sprokets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
More recently I went for a triple because I was returning to road cycling at the age of 50, and immediately following knee surgery. My triple with a 12-25 cassette gives me maybe one lower gear than a compact with 12-27, but what I do get is more sprockets that are only 1 tooth apart, so I can change cadence / effort in small increments which suits my knackered knees. As you say, I spend most of my time in the 39 chainring.
12/25 cassette is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25.
12/27 cassette is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,24,27.
Where are all those sprockets that are not only 1 tooth apart.
For a triple to make real sense you need a smaller inner ring. If I was riding loaded then I would definitely go for a 50/39/26 with probably a 12/27. You can fit down to 26 at least on a 74mm BCD crank.
I don't like the 12/25 as the bottom sprockets are too close together. Once you get down there you need to get as low as you can. You would only use the 24 and 27 on the granny and no lower than the 24 on the middle ring so why not have a bit of insurance.
I also returned to cycling after over 30 years off at 55. I am now 69 and still racing. I did a Pyreneen Raid (2006) on a compact with no difficulty. Not easy but I rode everything. Smilies don't seem to work.
As a starter a triple aint no bad thing at all.
As you become fitter on the bike then you consider compact chainsets and cassette options.
If you want to race after you become one mean son of a roadie then you can upgrade the bike to big assed double.