Most say go for a compact over triple

p1tse

Most say go for a compact over triple

With weight, not required unless doing steep hills, those starting and being unfit etc

But I've found a bike with triple, is it less smooth on gear changes, Is gearing better on a compact?

chadders81

Some people will say you get a better chain line with a compact and slightly better shifting. And they will say that a compact offers you the same range of gears.

But if you're happy, go for it.

p1tse

Chadders81 wrote:

Some people will say you get a better chain line with a compact and slightly better shifting. And they will say that a compact offers you the same range of gears.

But if you're happy, go for it.

Thanks
As a newbie I thought that in my head, better chain line and therefore shifting

zippy483

Similar gear range with compact and triple, but smaller jumps between gears on a triple , took advice from LBS when I ordered my new bike was thinking compact, but was advised triple for the above reason, apparently there can be a lot of swapping backwards and forward on the front chainrings on a compact.

Good article in the second issue of Cyclist magazine about gearing author is a big fan of triples although is reluctant to say so because they are seen as not cool, but really who gives a toss I'd rather ride up the hill than get off and push

zippy483

Oh and as far as shifiting goes, my tiple shifts just fine

zippy483

Oh and just another one the extra weight of a triple is immaterial unless your pared down to your fighting weight

Difference in weight between and Ultegra triple and Compact is 190g ish so less than half a pound, so for me being at least a stone overweight it is as you can see immaterial

Herbsman

A mate of mine does 3/4 and E/1/2/3/4 races on a triple. Nothing wrong with them.

Bordersroadie

zippy483 wrote:

there can be a lot of swapping backwards and forward on the front chainrings on a compact

This is absolutely true and an often overlooked major benefit of a triple.

My 12 mile ride to work is hilly (50+ feet per mile) and I ride it between 17-18mph average. The ace card of the triple is that on the middle ring (39 in my case) I can access all 10 sprockets, from 11 to 28, without crosschaining, so for the last few months I have never used either the big or granny ring on my commute. That's hundreds of miles.

It's the same story for generally rolling terrain with an averagely fit rider (me), where the 39 ring makes life very easy indeed as most of the time I want ratios that are 39 front and somewhere around the middle of the rear. It's ironic that having so much choice of gearing actually means you make fewer changes!

I'm a convert from a compact because as a compact user I was forever needing a "big-big" or "small-small" ratio (which is why you see a lot of compact riders riding with a bad chainline ("crosschaining") so to avoid this, on my compact, I was constantly hunting up and down the front rings to find the right cadence, and each such change needed a corresponding rear change too.

On Shimano 105 the difference is 150g.

Most triple skeptics don't understand (or believe) this benefit because you only really do so if you ride both systems extensively. And they are just far too cool to have (gasp!) three chainrings up front.

There are many other benefits but I've banged on about them on previous threads so I'll just stick to the (huge) benefit above for now.

pkripper

my preference is for a compact over a triple, just because I found I just did not use the inner ring on the triple at all, and broadly spend most of the time on the big ring at the front anyway, as there's only a couple of hills in Surrey that defeat me on that. But, I do run a 12-28 on the rear, so there's a fairly decent spread.

Omar Little

I have a double, a compact and a triple on various bikes.

The triple is good for loaded touring or hilly riding when it gets very steep but for for general riding i find it a bit annoying because it is more prone to the chain rubbing on the front derailleur even with the trim option.

I know in theory it has more gears with smaller jumps in the cassette but the actual useable gears is less than on the compact which i can set up and will work for months without any annoying noises before i need to fettle the gears again.

Sprool

I'm happy with my triple, theres not much trimming needed and the small ring is in constant use for uphill sections, middle for cruising the flats and the outer for any downhill. I like the extra choice available.

drlodge

Unless you need a smaller gaer than 34-28, choose a compact. Lower gearing than that will need a longer cage RD anyway, so then you're into either bigger cassettes or a triple. I don't find double changing or chain line an issue at all. Understand where the cross over gears are, and use the right gear with the best chain line. I'm always double changing, and think nothing of it.

dylanfernley

triple for the touring bike, compact for the carbon-- got 50/40/30- 12- 28 , but as pointed out earlier 34-28 is not far off, all that chainline stuff-- bit o nonsense-- its not going to make much difference to chain 'life' !

buckmulligan

Bordersroadie wrote:

zippy483 wrote:

there can be a lot of swapping backwards and forward on the front chainrings on a compact

This is absolutely true and an often overlooked major benefit of a triple.

My 12 mile ride to work is hilly (50+ feet per mile) and I ride it between 17-18mph average. The ace card of the triple is that on the middle ring (39 in my case) I can access all 10 sprockets, from 11 to 28, without crosschaining, so for the last few months I have never used either the big or granny ring on my commute. That's hundreds of miles.

It's the same story for generally rolling terrain with an averagely fit rider (me), where the 39 ring makes life very easy indeed as most of the time I want ratios that are 39 front and somewhere around the middle of the rear. It's ironic that having so much choice of gearing actually means you make fewer changes!

I'm a convert from a compact because as a compact user I was forever needing a "big-big" or "small-small" ratio (which is why you see a lot of compact riders riding with a bad chainline ("crosschaining") so to avoid this, on my compact, I was constantly hunting up and down the front rings to find the right cadence, and each such change needed a corresponding rear change too.

On Shimano 105 the difference is 150g.

Most triple skeptics don't understand (or believe) this benefit because you only really do so if you ride both systems extensively. And they are just far too cool to have (gasp!) three chainrings up front.

There are many other benefits but I've banged on about them on previous threads so I'll just stick to the (huge) benefit above for now.

Interesting point. Not one I can relate to living in the flatlands of Essex, but it sounds very logical! But my question is, if you don't use the granny ring, why not switch to a standard double (53-39) and then you have the best of both worlds.

IME, triples are good for loaded-up touring on variable gradients, but prefer a double (standard or compact) for general riding.

Bordersroadie

BuckMulligan wrote:

But my question is, if you don't use the granny ring, why not switch to a standard double (53-39) and then you have the best of both worlds.

Good question. Because I live in a hilly area and apart from my commute I generally ride very hilly routes, around 100ft per mile. On the steep road sections, the ratios of climbing gears I have on the granny are closer-spaced than on a compact. And of course I get a better bail-out gear for severely steep climbs like Hardnott pass.

I can see why someone in a non-hilly spot would not want a triple, fair enough.

Sprool

wilo13 wrote:

As mentioned already, A triple is a waste of time unless you are doing a full on tour with panniers etc.

spare some compassion for those of us who are not super athletes, struggling in a hilly region to lose weight and get fitter. For me, a triple is no waste of time, its essential to give me the gears to ride comfortably over the terrain.

k-dog

I haven't had a triple in a few years but I found the chainring sizes annoying - the big ring was too big and the middle wasn't quite bit enough so I found myself changing a lot.

My 50/34 compact seems better for average riding - althought it is 10 speed and my old triple was only 8 I think.

Bordersroadie

drlodge wrote:

I'm always double changing, and think nothing of it.

Precisely my point: I'm not.

huuregeil

For the same bottom gear (basically what all these arguments boil down to), a triple gives a bigger top gear and closer spacing. What's not to like? A triple is my first choice to take to an alpine sportive, not because I need the low gearing, rather I appreciate the tighter spacing and I also find it relatively easy to spin out 50/13 going downhill (40kph is ~140rpm on 50/13, whereas it's a relatively chill 120rpm on 53/12). A 13/26 or 29 being the cassette to take with a compact for me; vs a 12/23 or 25 on a triple.

paul968

wilo13 wrote:

Sprool wrote:

wilo13 wrote:

As mentioned already, A triple is a waste of time unless you are doing a full on tour with panniers etc.

spare some compassion for those of us who are not super athletes, struggling in a hilly region to lose weight and get fitter. For me, a triple is no waste of time, its essential to give me the gears to ride comfortably over the terrain.

Have you actually owned a Compact chainset? Also I am no super athlete! I had a triple on my first road bike (which I bought second hand off ebay when I knew nothing about cycling). A 34-28 gear is more than enough to get you up almost any hill. If you had a triple your lowest gear would be 30-28. Hardly a huge difference considering a triple is heavier, you get more chain rub and your always having to double shift! Also the range of gears on a triple and compact are very similar as a lot of the gearing on a triple overlaps so you dont have as many gears as they make you think.

How do you know the capabilities of the poster (Sprool)? Your profile says you are 22. Some of us are over twice your age and carrying a fair few extra pounds for good measure, so any extra help on a steep hill is very welcome for us. I would hope in time to not need the small ring, but the extra weight is so tiny that the cost is neglegible.

Just to put the numbers in context, the extra weight of a triple is perhaps a 0.2 % increase. A 30 instead of 34 chainring is worth around 12%. I know which I'd rather have.