Viewing 24 posts - 41 through 64 (of 64 total)
  • Road bike – compact double or triple?
  • firestarter
    Free Member

    i found compact was terrible most of the time i stayed on the big ring . Too much infact lol as i was **** most of the time before i dropped to the little ring as it was such a big drop it was terrible. If i were you id go triple. Ive standard double on mine and when loaded with panniers i sometimes wish i had a granny ring lol

    njee20
    Free Member

    I'm glad it's not just me that finds the ratios on a compact 'wrong!'

    I think it's great when people say 'you don't need a triple'. How on earth do you have any clue about other peoples fitness, riding technique, local terrain etc etc? I'm lucky(?) enough to be able to get up our local hills in a double, but I can definitely see the merit in a triple. I see no point in grinding up climbs in bottom gear when you can comfortably have a lower gear, just for the sake of being macho.

    joe90
    Free Member

    get a non-compact double (53/39) it'll be hard work at first but when you get back on a mountain bike the gears will seem like a breeze up any hill.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    traildog
    Free Member

    I think triples have far more use in the UK than the alps. The climbs are long in the alps, but they generally are nowhere near as steep and you can recover much easier on them.

    When you go for a 'compact' chainset, you are getting a chainset with a smaller bolt hole diameter than the 'standard'. So where as 38T will be the smallest you will be limited to on a standard, you can go down to 34T on compact, which is what most of them come with.

    However, you are not limited to 50/34 and as many people have said, this is a big gap. For those people, why not up the inner ring, to a 36 or even a 38? A compact will give you more usable choices and is lighter than a standard double so just makes sense IMHO.

    As for if you should go triple or double, well only you can answer than. I prefer the shifting of a double, and I cannot imagine any climb in the UK, that I could not get up in 34/27 and if there was, then I could borrow my mountain bike parts and setup a 34/32 lowest gear…

    njee20
    Free Member

    If you run a compact as 50/38 how have you got more usable ratios? The smaller gap between rings means you've got fewer usable ratios!? And… if you can turn a 38, why not get a standard double so you've got a 53 too?

    Even with 50/36 you have exactly the same number of usable ratios, as the gap between the rings is identical to a 53/39, they're all just a bit lower!

    MrOvershoot
    Full Member

    Glad to see its not just me that finds the step on a compact that little to much, having been a roadie from the late 70's I was used to 52/42.

    Went away from riding the road in the early 90's to mountain biking, wife very kindly bought me a PX Clubman Team SL last year and its a great bike but I do struggle with the huge jump on the front.
    Bought a CX bike on the Cycle to work scheme and that has a similar compact which is getting on my nerves so will probably fit a triple as I also use it on longer hilly routes fitted with slicks.

    Coleman
    Free Member

    James – Your original question related to the merits of compact verses triple so all these macho threads are of little benefit!

    The compact and triple have a similar range of gears and are both great for those steep climbs we don't have in GB.
    For fast road work I find the 34/50 of the compact too big a jump for fliud changes without compensating by changing up/down at the rear.
    Personally I prefer the triple as I can ride it just like a 39/53 double which I find easier to maintain a more constant cadence between front ring changes. The inner ring can be kept in reserve for the really steep bits.

    Hope this may be of some help.

    fbk
    Free Member

    Hmm – glad this thread settled down a bit into some sensible comments as this is something I've been wondering about too (buying my first road bike for about 15 years!).

    Sounds like a triple makes more sense at the mo. I'm sure I can live with the roadie shame!

    Foxyrider – didn't realise you'd changed yours to a triple…… Gay! 😉

    njee20
    Free Member

    The compact and triple have a similar range of gears

    No they don't, compacts have a lower top gear, and a higher bottom gear, which is why a triple makes sense!

    ourmaninthenorth
    Full Member

    I'm someone who runs a triple on both road bikes (winter/commuter, and decent bike).

    Why? Well, the winter bike came with a triple, and I also use it for touring and load lugging, so it's handing to have plenty of usuable gears.

    The good bike I had built up early on in my road "career", and was specced for the 2007 Étape. I needed the triple as I suffered up the likes of the Port du Bales.

    This year, I rode the Étape again and, while much stronger than when I started road riding 2 and a bit years ago, I recognize that I'm still no climber. I crawled up the Ventoux in 30×27 and, even with that ratio, wished for a lower gear – I didn't get off and walk, as I saw so many others (with doubles, comapcts and triples) doing.

    Back home in the UK, there are very few climbs I would use a triple for, and even then the number of miles in my legs beforehand makes a difference. The vast majority of the time, I don't use the granny, but I'm pleased it's there when I have to.

    Sure, there's a tradition thing about 53/39, which is great (and I recognise that), but for me there is also the reality of the type of rider I am.

    So, make a fair assessment of whether you think you're going to be fine climbing, or are going to find any hill a fight. then think about the sort of riding you want to do, and where you want to do it.

    But, there's a more prosaic concern: the kit is slightly different for a compact and triple set-ups. The former is just a double with a smaller pair of chain rigs (so has a double front mech, *probably* a short cage rear mech, and a double l/h shifter). The triple will differ on all of those and so, if you want to fit a double later (because all your new road mates call you gay), it will be harder if you started with a triple.

    Beyond that, you pay your money and you take your choice.

    slugwash
    Free Member

    The compact and triple have a similar range of gears and are both great for those steep climbs we don't have in GB.

    Like Crowthers Hill out of Dartmouth? It's a bloody 1 in 3 (33%) climb. Triple territory in my book and definately located within Great Britain.

    traildog
    Free Member

    If you run a compact as 50/38 how have you got more usable ratios? The smaller gap between rings means you've got fewer usable ratios!? And… if you can turn a 38, why not get a standard double so you've got a 53 too?

    Pay attention. Obviously you don't have more usable ratios if you are just using that setup, but you can swap chainrings and go lower. Which is what I was saying. And if you want to run 52/38 on a compact, then you can. That's what I'm saying, it gives you more options on what you can run. Which is the advantage.

    So I can put a 34 ring on when I'm doing lakeland passes, or a 38 for flatter routes. And I can still keep a narrow block on which is preferable for riding in a group.
    Purchasing rings is miles cheaper than purchasing different chainsets, which I have known people to do because they think Compact means only 50/34 and standard means only 53/39…

    ourmaninthenorth
    Full Member

    traildog – cunning. You've solved the OP's problems (except, perhaps, his concern at his testicular fortitude after the chest beating machismo of samuri anmd others).

    aracer
    Free Member

    Well given the macho men have gone away and we can have a sensible discussion, I'll just chip in that having considered it more and given the other comments on here, for somebody new to the road, provided you don't live somewhere flat that a standard double would work, then a triple probably is better. Gives you the option of a lower bottom gear if you need it, which means you can spin up that hill when you're tired rather than heave over a big gear (you can always stay in a higher gear if you want to do that, but at least you have the option). Also means you don't have the awkward front chainring jump. Only disadvantages are a tiny bit of weight, the slightly more difficult shifting with a triple (though as a MTBer you're used to shifting a triple, and a compact can also be awkward), and the image thing.

    Still happy I got a compact on my road bike, but then Campag don't make a nice carbon triple. Meanwhile compact works a lot better with Campag, provided like me you are happy to shift the back when you shift the front, as you can shift up several cogs on the back in one go at the same time as you shift the front in order to get rid of the big jump. By doing that, I don't find the jump at all awkward, though it is an acquired habit, and maybe not something somebody new to the road wants to be doing.

    joemarshall
    Free Member

    Personally I prefer the triple as I can ride it just like a 39/53 double which I find easier to maintain a more constant cadence between front ring changes. The inner ring can be kept in reserve for the really steep bits.

    That's what I do – 53, 39 on the front, 12-23 on the back, plus a 30t ring for in case I need to carry heavy loads up hills, pull a trailer, or if I have a hard day and need a rest, riding back from doing other exercise or whatever. We have a load of 15% or so climbs in the valley, which are fine in 39×23 usually, but if I'm tired or I've just bought a load of shopping or something, then having the triple to fall back on is great. As a bonus, I have a nice close set of ratios on the cassette, which is handy. It seems to very neatly go so that middle ring = uphill, big ring = downhill – I don't have any flat on my commute, but if I do ride flat, it is mainly big ring too. I also spin out 53×12 on two hills on my commute – so I guess I wouldn't be happy with the compact.

    Isn't compact just a compromise for people who want to look like they push big gears all the time, but don't actually want to push a big gear? I doubt I'd ever notice the 200g of weight saving (I'd take the mudguards off if I was that fussed about weight).

    it gives you more options on what you can run. Which is the advantage.

    So I can put a 34 ring on when I'm doing lakeland passes, or a 38 for flatter routes. And I can still keep a narrow block on which is preferable for riding in a group.

    Kind of like having a triple, except that you have to guess in advance that you might get a big load of shopping / come down with a cold this afternoon or are planning a very hilly ride or whatever and unbolt a chainring and fit a new one, rather than just pushing a lever with your left hand to change into the lower ring.

    Can someone tell me what the disadvantages of a triple are? As far as I can tell, all they are is:

    1) Macho fashion victims won't like it
    2) 200g extra weight

    Whereas advantages are:
    1)You won't have to change cassettes / chainrings for different rides.
    2)You have a nice low gear if you're carrying heavy loads or feeling a bit ill.
    3)You have nice close ratios at the back.
    4)You piss off the macho fashion victims.
    5)If you get to a hill that is too steep for your level of fitness, you don't have to walk.
    6)You can use an efficient cadence up very steep hills.
    7)You have a nice high top gear for steep downhills.

    Joe

    ransos
    Free Member

    I rarely use the inner ring on my triple, but I'm glad it's there. Very handy for steep hills at the end of a century ride, and also when light touring. Coupled with a 12-27 cassette, I get a wider range AND closer ratios on the front. And all for a tiny increase in weight. So the question should be why wouldn't you use a triple? I'm struggling to see what its disadvantages are.

    traildog
    Free Member

    Well, as I said originally, it comes down to what the individual wants and what their uses and idea of 'road bike' actually is.

    Disadvantages of a triple is cluncky shifting and lots of extra weight. Which is a big thing if you have bought an expensive race bike. A bit like buying a Nova and putting race parts on it, only in reverse.
    But then, I don't go shopping on a carbon race bike…

    I'm just pointing out that compact doesn't mean just 50/34…

    njee20
    Free Member

    You need will power not to go more slowly.

    If you're in a bunch/racing and everyone else has a double, on a steep climb they will just have to dig in a bit, whilst it would be very easy to shift into the 30t and drift off the back, if that bothers you!

    Probably more relevant on some triples where they're actually 52/42/30 as opposed to having a 39t middle.

    Bigger q-factor on a triple too.

    Neither probably bother most people!

    joemarshall
    Free Member

    cluncky shifting and lots of extra weight.

    Why is it clunky if you've set it up right? At least between top and middle ring shouldn't be clunky – if anything it's more clunky on the big jump of a compact chainring.

    As for extra weight, it's only 200g or so, and not on the wheels – it'd be amazing if anyone could notice the difference without looking down to see what they were riding.

    Joe

    ransos
    Free Member

    Disadvantages of a triple is cluncky shifting and lots of extra weight

    Triple shifts just fine on my bike, and I can't believe that a compact is as smooth as a standard double. An inner chainring weighs less than 50g – you have a strange idea of what constitutes a lot of weight!

    aracer
    Free Member

    I also spin out 53×12 on two hills on my commute – so I guess I wouldn't be happy with the compact.

    Unless you use a 11 tooth small cog, which makes for a slightly higher top gear than 53/12. I was running 11/23 for normal riding with my compact, which gave me a very useful range for my normal riding (having previously had 12/23 with 53/39, which meant I struggled with or didn't ride some of the steepest hills around). With my lack of fitness this year I've been using 12/25 instead, and I do miss the 11 – of course a triple would work better 🙄

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    James (OP), I've just been in the same position. I bought a Cayo 105 about 2 months ago and thought long and hard over the triple vs compact question. My gut feel was to go for the triple option living in East Lancs with some steepish hills.

    However I did a bit of research, asked about on some roadie forums and calculated the various ratios. Realised the triple only gave me one lower ratio than the compact and got a lot of feedback from the roadies saying compact was the way to go. So I bought the compact.

    Been very happy with it, managed to get up the hills locally, haven't had a problem with the big gap between front rings, if anything I find it easier, only a choice of 2 chain rings.

    So from personal experience I'd recommend a compact but give it some serious thought first as it's not cheap to swap later.

    The Cayo is supposed to be a stiff racy bike (I'll have to take the reviewer's words for that as I don't have anything to compare against) and as such is not the most laid back of rides anyway. If you really want a triple maybe it would suggest a more compliant frame with more relaxed geometry would be more appropriate?

    spangelsaregreat
    Free Member

    Hi,

    To make the decision you really only have to consider the following.

    1. What is the biggest gear I need based on my every day riding.
    2. What is the smallest gear I need based on my every day riding.
    3. What is the step down from the big ring large cog to the small ring small cog to maintain smooth pedalling.

    Personally I now ride a 50×34 and a 12-23. When I was young and fit and racing I only very rarely felt I needed anything bigger that the 53×12. Now that I just ride the road bike for fun I am not to stressed at freewheeling for a bit when I (very occaisionally and only downhill with a tailwind) spin out.

    I like the 12-23 as it gives a good one tooth jump up to the 19 which makes riding in the big ring easy for most of my riding. Also the 34×23 suits me for the majority of hills I have to go up. I found once I had stopped racing a 39×23 just became to big for the really steep hills which just led to me grinding up hills.

    The drop from 50 to 34 is not as smooth as a 53 to 39 for 42. If you look at it logically you drop from the big ring to the small ring when it gets to heavy (well duh). In an ideal world you would have one chain ring and 20 gears at the back but we don't. So to get the one cog jump when dropping down the wee ring you will have to drop a cog or two at the back.

    Roughly that is about

    53×42 – drop three at the back
    53×39 – drop four at the back
    50×34 – drop five at the back

    On the compact that can mean a bit of faff when dropping down which might lose you a bit of your rhythm. In a race situation that can be a problem if the pressure is on and you don't want to find yourself spun out on the wee ring drop. In reality it is simply a case of remembering how many cogs you need to drop at the back to keep things smooth (alot easier with ergo powers ability to drop multiple cogs rather than having to do individual shifts). For everyday riding for unfit fat boys it probably ain't going to make a life or death situation.

    Riding a triple would mean you can get the low gear on the wee ring for that occiasional bastid (tm of trout) climb with the convenience of a 53×42/39 for everyday riding. You will of course look gay and people will point and laugh at you as you ride past!!!

    Regards

    zaskar
    Free Member

    I find my double shifts smoothly while the tripple is not as smooth.

    Having the double makes riding simple but you will just have to get get fitter.

    Tripple I find is more time consuming to set up on my roadbike (easy on the double or mtb)

Viewing 24 posts - 41 through 64 (of 64 total)

The topic ‘Road bike – compact double or triple?’ is closed to new replies.