Compact,Double or Triple

Ron Stuart

keef66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clearly the main advantage of a triple is that you don't have to change at the front nearly as often.

Well that's certainly my experience. On a flat or gently undulating ride I can just leave it in the middle chainring and use the whole of the 12-25 cassette. Sometimes stay there for the whole ride.
Nasty headwind or a steep climb and I drop into the granny ring and again have 10 rear cogs to choose from. Massive tailwind or a long / steep downhill and ditto but in the big ring.

I concede there are many duplicate gear ratios in there, but I don't often do too many front shifts.

What you want is what I had many years ago and that is a single chain ring and instead of my old five speed cogset (how did we manage?) stick on an 11 speed block 11-28T but don't do what Millar did and take the front mech off :roll: :P

ps. Not advised to use all cogs on the inner or outer of a triple mate

keef66

ps. Not advised to use all cogs on the inner or outer of a triple mate

That's why I generally stay on the middle!

garymw

keef66 wrote:

ps. Not advised to use all cogs on the inner or outer of a triple mate

That's why I generally stay on the middle!

I do myself,usually middle cog, I live in a flat area so not many hills...luckily for me but will be going out with a workmate round his where there are a few more climbs..ouch :shock:

pride4ever

COMPACT, the triple is for your Gran.

Sprool

another vote for the triple here, a lot of good gradients round my way and i get up the hills a lot easier than some of my mates i ride with who have 'cooler' drive chain. I like to have wider choice of gears and i'm less of a low cadence power cyclist

Magic Spanner

southdownswolf wrote:

but on my new bike I have a Compact - 50/34 with 11-28 on the back.. The one thing that really annoys me about the bike is the huge jump between the gear ratios on the front,

I agree, the worst thing about 50/34 compact is this big gear ratio jump, requiring 2 rear shifts to compensate

declan1

pride4ever wrote:

COMPACT, the triple is for your Gran.

DOUBLE, the compact is for your Grandad.

jouxplan

Ignore anyone who suggests anything other than a double is a sign of weakness. Triples and compacts are extremely helpful for most mortals and/or people without a big chip on their shoulder.

Personally, I never got on with triples. For me the main problem was the bigger 'Q' factor - pedals being further away from the frame than normal. My body couldn't cope with this. Set up is a little more fiddly, yes, but that should not put you off.

I think compacts are perfect. I have them on all three of my bikes, including my rather nice £6500 custom Trek. For all my rides in Leicestershire, I find that my 50-34 and 12-23 set-up is just right. I can go up 10% climbs with relative ease and can get up the steeper stuff too, without dying. I don't often miss the 11. I love that the cassette is mostly close ratio. It's perfect for me.

When I go to the Alps (I do every year), I swop to a 12-28. I don't like the bigger gaps, but then again, I don't often feel the need to change from 1st to 2nd or 3rd during an hour long sufferfest up an Alp