Canyon cf 9.0 with compact or triple chainset?

mikeradar

I'll be buying a canyon cf 9.0 soon, my weapon of choice on the Dragon Ride and Etape for my first time on these.

The question is, do I go for a triple chainset for bail out gears, or should I just MTFU and go for the normal compact?

I'm currently doing my rides on a 11kg steel bike with a compact chainset and pretty much can go over anything including 25% gradients after 80 miles with effort, but sometimes I really wish I had a few extra bail out gears.

Triple
Pros:
- Lots of bail out gears, 120 miles into the ride and a 20% gradient looms, I should be able to make it.
- A 52 outer gives me higher top end for descents.
- More gears mean lower jumps in-between so I can always be in the right gear.

Cons:
- More maintenance
- Shifting isn't as smooth
- Extra weight
- Maybe I won't need the extra bail out gears, I'll be training hard and the alps doesn't get that steep anyway

Compact
Pros:
- Smooth easy to maintain gears
- Lighter
- A 28 tooth on the rear should be enough with a compact to tackle anything

Cons:
- No bail out gears. Pushing the bike up the alps will be a nightmare.

Wirral_paul

MTFU and stay with the compact.......................... in fact MTFU and ride a 53/39 chainset like us real men!!

In all seriousness, if you can manage with a compact now then stick with it. You could always fit a wider range cassette for the more lumpy routes you do

BBH

Agree with Wirral_Paul, Stick with the compact +/- cassette change as needed.

By your own admission 'you can pretty much can go over anything including 25% gradients after 80 miles with effort' so on a lighter bike you will fly!!!

You also only have one 'con' on the compact and four for the triple. Easy choice!!!!

Gazzaputt

I'd stick with a compact.

Reason being I run 53\39 of my CF pro and there is no clearance for the front mech on the 53 ring. There is a recess in the frame but this seems to be only for a compact. It fouls the frame if you don't get the adjustment right. I have adjusted this so it's rubbed the paint but just makes the 53 ring.

EKIMIKE

Yawn. Compact v Triple has been done to death.

34-38 is practically in the realm of 'triple' ratio's anyway. So why go for the heavier triple? 34-28 is a tiny, tiny gear. If you can't get up stuff on that then it's not because you need lower gearing - you need more fitness. But it sounds like you get by fine so i'm a bit confused why you're asking. Riding up hills will always be hard, regardless of how low a gear you have. Invariably you will find too low-a-gear will make it difficult to maintain a straight and forward line, you'll wobble all over the place and maybe even fall over. I've seen it happen.

The perfect gear for you still means working hard. It'll just allow you to work hard for longer.

BTW Gazzaputt's problem is something that only occurs when using Sram regardless of using standard or compact. Shimano and Campag mech's don't 'foul the frame', again regardless of using standard or compact.

Whether or not it's just Red or Force, Rival and Apex too? I'm not sure. But it's not a compact/standard issue. Equally, whether Canyon have sorted the issue with new stock is unclear. But they seem to be offering Red as standard on some build packages. So you would have thought they had sorted it.

siamon

Wouldn't a triple look a bit out of place on hardcore kit like the CF 9.0?

On the other hand, the French like a triple, and consider anyone who goes anywhere near or even "might" be going near the Alps with anything else as mentally challenged.

Strange about the SRAM issue. I assume Gazzaputt bought his as frame & forks?

arlowood

Would take issue with some of the "cons" listed against the triple by the OP

1. "More maintenance" - I rode a Campag Mirage triple on my Mercian for 14 years and the only thing I ever did on it was replace the 50 tooth chain ring due to wear after about 10000miles. My current Spesh has a Shimano triple and in just over a year with about 1500 miles ridden I have not had to touch it.

2. "Shifting isn't as smooth" - cant see why this should be. the chain is moving over much the same distance and the differences in chainring size are smaller on the triple than on a compact. Also I think it would be much easier to find a good cadence when you drop from 50 to 39 by switching one or two sprockets on the rear cassette. Dropping from 50 to 34 would involve more of a switch at the rear to maintain your momentum.

3 "Extra weight" - Come on!! - the weight difference between the Ultegra triple and compact is about 150g. The difference between having a good cr*p in the morning or not.


I ride a triple but like the OP I'm fit enough to tackle 99% of all the routes locally using the 50/39 chainrings - going down to 39/25 as my lowest gear. However I am happy that the granny ring is still there if I get caught out on an unfamiliar hill or at the end of a 100k sportive.

Get a bit tee'd off with the scorn poured on those who even breathe the word triple. It's down to personal choice in the end and if I were heading off to the Alps I would be glad to have the extra insurance of my 30 tooth ring

keef66

+1 to wot he said. I like my triple.
1) Front shifting is quicker / smoother than on a compact with a massive difference between the chainrings, and in any case I'm not having to constantly switch between front rings.
2) After the initial cable stretch I've not had to take a screwdriver to the mechs in 3 years of riding.
3) I'm not a weight weenie

siamon

Forgot to mention the fact that I ride a Campag triple (and it's bulletproof)

bobgfish

I also have the triple. Wasn't what I would have chosen but it was on the bike and would have cost to much to get it changed. Twenty years ago we used to ride and race a 53,42. I can't recall many hills that I walked but do recall having a 28 on the back for one monster. My current triple is faultless and even though I don't used the 30 a lot I do like the security in knowing that it is there. There is no more maintenance than a double. It also means I can use a 12-23 or 12-25 and find a very nice gear to climb in if required. In regards to weight I think it's next to nothing. Half a cup of water? A bit pointless to compare really.

You don't say what you currently have but would say buy what suits you and ignore critics of one system or another.

mikeradar

I'm leaning heavily towards the compact...

Wirral_Paul - Yup, I currently train on a heavy steel bike, further weighted down by two big water bottles and a half full camelbak, so if I can ride that over big gradients then a compact should be absolutely fine. Perhaps I'll get some mad idea to ride the Angliru one day and regret the compact though...

Gazzaputt - What 53 chainset is that? I can't imagine Canyon would offer the option of a triple if it didn't fit.

Siamon - Yep, perhaps a triple would look out of place, but I'm a function over form kinda guy... if the frenchies all have triples, they must be onto something

Arlowood / keef66 - Thanks for dispelling the wrong belief I had on triples being less maintanable

bobgfish - Yes, weight isn't too much of a priority, I was brainstorming to find anything wrong with a compact!

Gazzaputt

mikeradar wrote:

Gazzaputt - What 53 chainset is that? I can't imagine Canyon would offer the option of a triple if it didn't fit.

See post above it is to do with the SRAM front mech which I wasn't aware of.