First Road Bike - compact chain set question

redrabbit

Thinking of getting the Cannondale Synapse 8 for £750 (top of my budget)

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/can ... e-ec054418

I went to see it today, and I was put off with being told that Compact Chainsets are now preferred, as opposed to the 3 rings at the front as there's quite a few redundant gears, requiring a double gear change.

I saw the Cannondale Caad8 7 Sora for £750 also and this has a compact chainset:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/can ... e-ec053957

However, I don't think it looks as good (I know that's lame but that's my first impression), the bar shape is different too.

Can anyone assist with this? Am I being silly for being put off a decent bike just because it has a triple chain ring at the front?

sungod

unless you really need the extra low gears on the triple, i'd say get the model with the compact

according to the evans website, both use the same bars

aside from compact/triple, the main difference is the geometry, the caad8 is more 'racy'

redrabbit

sungod wrote:

unless you really need the extra low gears on the triple, i'd say get the model with the compact

according to the evans website, both use the same bars

aside from compact/triple, the main difference is the geometry, the caad8 is more 'racy'

Oh really, it's just the bar that runs from the handle bars to the seat looked at a different angle... I guess that's just the way it looks.

I think I will take your advice and get the black one with the compact chainset.

desweller

The main advantages of a triple are that you can have a wide range of gears without having to forego close ratios, and the entire back block is available for use on the middle chainring. For most casual riders, the big and small chainrings hardly ever get used.

The disadvantages are slightly more weight and - allegedly - more difficult to set up. You also have less choice of chainsets - the bulk of road chainsets are doubles or compacts.

simon_masterson

Slightly ironically, many will tell you that standard doubles are only for racers and that everyone else should use compacts. Whilst they do work very well for lesser mortals, the compact is a racer's chainset also - they use them to facilitate high cadence on hilly courses.

A triple offers higher and lower gearing than a compact; arguably better gearing for many amateurs and - in particular - casual cyclists, as the low gears are lower and the middle ring can be used with the whole cassette. As much as it's not something to encourage, having bigger gears is preferable to many whose fitness does not allow higher cadence as well. (If cadence is up to snuff, you won't 'spin out' a compact)

The question you need to ask is whether or not you need gearing as low as a triple offers - if you're not that fit and live in the lake district or Calderdale, it's not an illogical choice.

redrabbit

So is a double different to a compact? I thought compact just meant there was two rings at the front.

I'm far more into weight lifting than general fitness. My cardio and anaerobic fitness is terrible.

I live in south east England - so mainly flat.

Maybe I shouldn't rule out the 3 rings at the front?

ForumNewbie

redrabbit wrote:

So is a double different to a compact? I thought compact just meant there was two rings at the front.

I'm far more into weight lifting than general fitness. My cardio and anaerobic fitness is terrible.

I live in south east England - so mainly flat.

Maybe I shouldn't rule out the 3 rings at the front?

A standard double usually has two bigger rings at the front 52/39 whereas a compact double is usually 50/34. With the triple you would have 50/39/30 at the front on the bike you are looking at, so will be slightly better than the compact for steep hills, and a lot better than the standard double.

I recently bought a faster, lighter bike with a compact, but I like the gear changes better on my audax and hybrid bikes which both have triples. Dropping the chain from the 50 ring to the 34 at the front is a big drop and I sometimes have to immediately shift up a couple of gears at the back to stop me spinning. I don't get that on my triples.

simon_masterson

A 'standard double' - often abbreviated to 'double' - is 'standard' in that that's essentially what it was pre-compact. Usually distinguished by the 53/39 chainrings it tends to have (52/42 isn't so common anymore), but the difference is in the PCD of the chainrings: a typical modern double is 130pcd, whereas a compact is 110, which accommodates the smaller inner ring.

But don't rule out a triple: a lot of the snobbery surrounding them derives from 'the pros don't use them' (though it has happened), and they work very well for a lot of cyclists.

kajjal

Just choose whichever you think will suit you best. Gearing is down to personal preference and you can always change the cassette if you become a lot fitter. If you live in a very hilly area you may prefer a triple. I have a compact as I found previous triples irritated me on road.

redrabbit

I've decided now to dive right in for a compact.

Going to get the cannondale caad8!

alpineaddict

redrabbit... I don't have the same experience as most on here, but I have cycled a fair bit and I have a 'standard double' on my bike... I only ever use the inner ring when coming to a stop and starting off again... i seem to be constantly in the big ring these days for cruising at a round 20-23 mph...

However, I, like many, like climbing and I do find that I could do with the smaller inner ring (that a compact would offer) when on hills... Heading out to the alps in late summer, so might be investing in a compact ring for that trip...

slowbike

3 bikes, 3 different cranksets.

I did have 2 road bikes with the standard double crankset, but I changed to a compact on the best bike to facilitate a hilly ride with my wife as I didn't want to grind up at a cadence of 30-40 ... since that ride I've left the compact on and quite happily use that for my own hilly rides.
My second road bike is set up for TTs - this will stay with a standard double as the TTs I ride are generally flat and I have no need for the low gearing achievable with a compact.
The third bike is a commuter/family bike - it happen to come with a triple, I've found it to be really handy as I can put on a close ratio cassette for commuting or a wide range cassette with big tyres on for off-road and never run out of gears. Ignore the "extra weight" argument - I have some PBs uphill on this bike - complete with rack ...

whoof

Many riders need the lower gearing a triple offers but can get up the hills on a compact. It's just that some do so with a face like a beetroot and man handling the bars like Geoff Capes bending a piece of steel. They seem to think that as it's a hill it must be really hard. It's a bit like houses in the 1970s an before. Of course your house was cold for almost half the year, it's winter. Insulation and double glazing was a strange european thing, a bit like triples on road bikes.

markhewitt1978

As said about the reputation for triples is that they are for riders who are 'weak' and need really low gearing. But the main use IMO is that it allows you to run a close ratio cassette without sacrificing your bottom gear ratio. For example 30/25 on a triple is about the same ratio as 34/28 on a compact.

That being said I run a compact as I'm a fashion victim

gozzy

Indeed, I've always noticed how compacts have the same spread of gears as a triple, just with bigger jumps. All the talk of "the low gears that a triple gives you" is, erm, silly. A triple gives you a better spread of gears, but not necessarilly lower gears. How many run a 12-28 or 12-30 on their compact these days? Or sram wi-fli? Low gears.

As is the oft reeled out line, "I never use the inner ring on my triple, but I find it too hard to go up hills. So I want to change to a compact for the low gears". Which will mean ending up with the gears you already have, but having to spend a lot of money altering the bike to get exactly the same gears.

whoof

Whatever cassette you fit with a compact 34T ring you can run with anything from the 30 T usually supplied with a triple down to a 24T ring. This therefore offers the capability of a significantly lower gear.

markhewitt1978

Gozzy wrote:

Indeed, I've always noticed how compacts have the same spread of gears as a triple, just with bigger jumps. All the talk of "the low gears that a triple gives you" is, erm, silly. A triple gives you a better spread of gears, but not necessarilly lower gears. How many run a 12-28 or 12-30 on their compact these days? Or sram wi-fli? Low gears.

As is the oft reeled out line, "I never use the inner ring on my triple, but I find it too hard to go up hills. So I want to change to a compact for the low gears". Which will mean ending up with the gears you already have, but having to spend a lot of money altering the bike to get exactly the same gears.

I figure it's a mental thing because I know I suffer from it . You can see your front chainrings easily and so shifting down those is a a big deal, but the rear is easy to shift and out of sight. I know because a lot of the time I'm in the big ring when I would be better off going for the little ring.

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Gozzy wrote:

Indeed, I've always noticed how compacts have the same spread of gears as a triple, just with bigger jumps. All the talk of "the low gears that a triple gives you" is, erm, silly. A triple gives you a better spread of gears, but not necessarilly lower gears. How many run a 12-28 or 12-30 on their compact these days? Or sram wi-fli? Low gears.

As is the oft reeled out line, "I never use the inner ring on my triple, but I find it too hard to go up hills. So I want to change to a compact for the low gears". Which will mean ending up with the gears you already have, but having to spend a lot of money altering the bike to get exactly the same gears.

I figure it's a mental thing because I know I suffer from it . You can see your front chainrings easily and so shifting down those is a a big deal, but the rear is easy to shift and out of sight. I know because a lot of the time I'm in the big ring when I would be better off going for the little ring.

Ride in the dark then ....

one wet & windy commute home in the dark I came up the hill as usual and came out of the big ring into the middle ring for the climb ... at the top there's a nice steady descent down, so pushed the chain back up a ring and started going down through the cassette ... then ran out of cassette ... at which point I realised I'd come up the hill in the granny cog Ah well, never mind, nobody saw

markhewitt1978

The main reason is once I'm in the little ring it's all too easy to head straight for bottom gear. Whereas if I keep it in the big ring it somewhat forces me to turn a bigger gear. (This is for short distance training rides)