[Closed] Road bike - compact double or triple?

Triple only has any place on a mountain bike, and real roadies will call you a gay.

I have one of each. Triple on the tourer so I can make it up hilly stuff while fully laden. Compact on the "race" bike tho so the real roadies won't call me a gay.

Depends how low a bottom gear you need, and whether you can get that on a compact without a stupidly wide range cassette. The other issue being that some people don't like the big jump between rings on a compact, in which case a triple may work better, using big and middle for ordinary riding, saving granny for when you need it. If the gear range on a compact does work though (and you don't mind the jump) that's preferable if only to avoid the hassles of shifting a triple.

Triple only has any place on a mountain bike, and real roadies will call you a gay.

I have a triple as i don't like the jump with a compact and as i also pull a trailer with my road bike i like having the lower gears. Mine is 52-40-30 with a 12-26 cassette.

I get annoyed with the ring sizes on a compact, I generally find myself at the top of the block in the big ring, or the bottom of the block on the inner ring when I'm commuting in.

Never ridden a triple, but have no qualms with a standard double on my normal road bike, I think a 39t is much more usable than a 34t, I'd be inclined to go triple over compact in a lot of ways. Or maybe 50/36.

Edit: double post.

Depends where you live or intend to ride. And how fit you are I guess.

I got a double (first road bike) and was fine on the local loop with steep but short hills, even over-took some mtb'rs going up.

Soon as I went up on the (Yorkshire) moors...

Double means short cage derailler short chain double front shifter? So I swopped the 11-25t for an 11-32 SLX cassette, XT rear mech & new chain (CRC flood sale). Been up 25% no probs since. Also seem to use the inner ring a lot less generally.

Think it would have been cheaper to have bought a triple.

Never been anywhere in Britain where you can't get by on a double. And I've ridden up all the big passes in the lakes and some of the crazy 17-20% hills in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

* swoons *

You get by maybe, but you might enjoy it a bit more with a lower gear. Also bear in mind that when you're describing 17-20% as stupid steep, one of our local sportives has a couple of 25% climbs (they're not short either).

Happen, but the OP was asking what's best and as pointed out, it all depends on what you ride. If you've got a mixture of very steep climbs and fast flat riding to do, double in my experience will do the job fine. Granny on a road bike just means you spin away like crazy no matter how steep the climb is and is just a waste of time.

As others have said it depends where and what you ride.never got on with the 53/39 set up on my road bike and switched to a compact and it feels right and it's got me up some major Scottish climbs. Compact for me every time

Granny on a road bike just means you spin away like crazy no matter how steep the climb is and is just a waste of time.

Unless you are over 70 or a woman then there is nowhere in britain where a triple is justified. Get a compact- it'll make you work for the really, really steep things but paired with a 25T cassette you'll get up it all very comfortably.

Personally I like a proper double for where I live, with a 25T cassette, and it's great.

[i]You won't be spinning like crazy up a 25% climb with a 30/27[/i]

Yeah, you might not.

Dunno about you Samuri, but I meet 25% climbs a LOT on my rides... All the time infact.

I do struggle to see where a triple granny ring would be needed on a road bike. - seldom get out the big ring never mind the inner 34 which I use for hard climbs such as the wall of talla at 20% for 1 mile

I never knew there were so many pro riders on here.

Though to be fair, I did know there were a lot of macho c*cks.

Don't you live in the alps, where a triple is somewhat justified?

I'm perfectly happy to use the granny ring on my MTB, I'm very much a spinner, but on the road I'm still baffled as to where you'd need gearing lower than that on a compact, and a lot of my riding is in the highlands and the peak district.

I like waiting at the bottom of the 20% climbs round ours for people to start riding/driving up them and then chase them down. I'll point at my crankset as I pass and mouth the words 'big ring' at them.

LOL @ aracer - what the **** is macho about riding a bike? I'm speaking from personal experience and I can't see where I would benefit from a triple chianset on any uk ride I've done

And I think most pros are still into the 53/39 thing

I bet he's gone to bed already. That's why he finds it difficult using a double.

aracer - Member

I never knew there were so many pro riders on here.

Though to be fair, I did know there were a lot of macho c*cks.

Yeah. If only these folk didn't have full times jobs as well, GB could be a force in world cycling.

Oh wait....

Sad how these sort of threads deteriorate into willy waving rather than being helpful to the OP - bearing in mind he might just not be quite as fit or fast as you lot claim to be. Also bearing in mind that it's not a case of what you can struggle to turn the pedals over in - it does actually help to be able to turn the pedals over a bit faster. Interesting to note that probably the quickest person on this thread would prefer triple over compact.

As I said, you might cope, but even on a 15% grade, I'd be turning the pedals at less than 60rpm with 34/27, at which point a lower gear is beneficial. I'd be rather surprised if the average punter on here asking about what to put on a road bike (or even most of the macho men) is actually faster than me up hills - a good chance a lot of them would be down below 60rpm even on a 10% climb in 34/27.

what the **** is macho about riding a bike?

Don't you live in the alps

Sorry to disappoint aracer but wouldn't even be out the big ring on a 15% climb. You're probably not as good as you think

Looking gay on a bike has never concerned me, and I fail to understand why riding a triple chainset would make me appear 'gay'.

I can get up everything round these parts on a compact double James although a couple of lumps around Chapel, Goyt Valley and the like require a deep breath and a steely stare before I go up. Winnats has me gurning like a gurning champ and on a fair to bad day I've been known to stop and...ahem, admire the scenery for a minute or two.
If I was going to be pulling the trailer a lot for shopping or heading off to the alps a couple of times per year, I'd get a triple without a second thought.

Personally I dont think you really need a triple - I used to ride a triple on a steel bike but then I switched to a compact double on a Ti bike & would never bother with a triple again..& I ride in California pretty regularly where the hills are ****ing steep & pretty sustained - its easy to climb 1500ft in 5 miles.

But its upto the OP what he wants to do - spin & maybe save yer knees a little or be a bit of an ape & turn a bigger ring..Whatever you do hv fun

Right well as you say it comes down to the OP asking what's best and why. It's a vague question and it's impossible to answer on his behalf but it seems the majority of people responding, seem to think that there's nothing in Britain that needs a triple. This would suggest to me that a double is better because it feels right for the job and is perfectly possible.

You'll note that the OP is asking about a compact double, not a road double, which is going to be a lot easier.

All the 'macho' men as you call them all put in their personal experiences first, me included. After that you got a bit arsey because either people didn't agree with you or because you find a double a bit intimidating and that's when the piss taking/machosim started.

If James is unsure, I'd suggest expanding on the original question so we can help more as we did at the start.

You're probably not as good as you think

All the 'macho' men as you call them all put in their personal experiences first, me included. After that you got a bit arsey because either people didn't agree with you or because you find a double a bit intimidating

I run both.

53/39 with a 11-25 cassette which I might change for 11-27 when it needs changing or just lose more weight and ride more.

I also have a tripple for when I do recovery rides.

I have tons and tons of steep hills which is tough to walk up let alone ride. I have spun my rear wheel on the double in winter uphill.

I can outsprint alot of riders on the straight and keep it going but soon as I get a hill I struggle like hell.

Maybe more hill work but looking forward to a 27 on the back.

Injured my leg (non cycling) so a tripple is great for recovering on-hey we're not all Lance.

Laugh at my tripple-I couldn't care!

Morning all - sounds like a healthy debate overnight!

The Focus Cayo I'm looking at has these spec options:

Compact double - 50/34 with 12-27 cassette
Triple - 50/39/30 with 12-27 cassette

Now I am by no means Lance Armstrong and I do prefer to spin a lower gear off-road but I was thinking I might spend more time in the middle ring of a triple rather than switching frequently between the two rings of a double? Or do most of you stay on the 50t 90% of the time making this irrelevant? I haven't ridden a road bike for so long I genuinely don't know what the gearing feels like.

I live in the Peak District so I guess there are some hills here but perhaps not by Alpine standards.

Thanks for all the replies!

i say triple. Roadies might call you gay - mind you none have dared to do that to me yet ....

I ride triple because my bike does audaxing and touring and TT as well as racing.

With a triple you have all the benifits of 39:52 with non of the downsides .....ie a 30tooth get out clause.34:50 is just shit -and ive been riding a road bike with that recently - experiances much like Nicks - or that im spinning at 150 RPM to keep up with the guys i ride with

I used the granny ring 3 times in my ownership of a road bike but by god was i glad it was there ! 1st time ever - climbing to the homer tunnel in nz fully loaded
2 climbing the road from nelson onto the coastal route - while being a stone lighter in weight due to giardia.
3. Climbing the lecht after having ridden 200k(hilly) already

I'm with aracer here, there's a lot of macho bullshit about this. I have a compact double on my road bike - def sometimes wish I had a triple on the hills round here when I've got the panniers on.

James i'd go for a compact unless you are touring with a laden bike, afterall if you find a compact a struggle you can always use a more climb friendly cassette and triples look very ugly on a road bike, and looks i think you'll agree, are the most important thing 😉

Unless you're touring I'd say a compact is all you need. I'm a wuss on hills and prefer to spin but even I rarely use the 34-27 (only on stuff like 20% gradients or when I'm knackered on a long drag). Going for a lower gear than that and you quickly slow down to a crawl (sometimes without realising it) so I generally find it's better just to get on with it and suck up a bit of short term grinding away on steep stuff rather than settle down to a granny gear and end up taking twice as long.
If your local area has a lot of stuff over 20% or you're doing some touring then things change and a triple is probably needed to give you a low enough gear to cope.

I'd go with the triple if I were you James, if you've not ridden a road bike for a long time, you like spinning and you live in the peak district, it would seem the obvious choice.

aracer.... I enjoy getting up on the pedals and mashing the gears, so my original advice still holds, it's as valid as anyone elses given.

[i]Don't you live in the alps, where a triple is somewhat justified? [/i]

IME a triple is more useful in the UK than in the Alps! The climbs there are obviously much much longer but much better graded and also smoother - road surfaces on the continent are generally far superior to anything you'll find over here. In the UK you tend to get much shorter steeper climbs (on rubbish road surfaces 🙁 )

Having said that the ONLY place I've ever needed a comapct was on the Fred Whitton Challenge for Hardknott and Wrynose Passes. I did it on my slicked up CX with a 34-27 low gear. For everything else my normal road bike does the job fine (39/53 chainset with a 12-23 cassette). But I'm quite light and I like climbing.

Compacts are ace, they give you more or less the same range as a triple but at the expense of some fractionally larger jumps in gears. From a purely personal point of view though, I don't like compacts - as njee20 mentioned above I sometimes find it difficult to get into a comfortable gear that's not big/big or small/small). I think it's just cos I've always used a 39/53 rather than inhernet flaws in the equipment!

My advice would be to go for the compact unless you're planning on touring.

I had my first serious roadbike 3 years ago and came with a compact - after doing 3 months of riding around dartmoor I quickly changed to a triple. Although I am sure I could ride with a double the triple gave me more range and on a long ride esp up Dartmeet and some 1 in 4's like porlock the triple saves my legs! I am a MTB'r first and foremost and so I really don't care about what people think about my roadbike. Road bikers I think can be far more snobbish about kit than MTB'rs but thats their problem!

i found compact was terrible most of the time i stayed on the big ring . Too much infact lol as i was ****ed 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

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.

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.

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...

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!

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.

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.

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! 😉

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!

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 30x27 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.

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

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.

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...

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).

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.

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 39x23 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 53x12 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

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.

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...

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!

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

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!

I also spin out 53x12 on two hills on my commute - so I guess I wouldn't be happy with the compact.

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?

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 50x34 and a 12-23. When I was young and fit and racing I only very rarely felt I needed anything bigger that the 53x12. 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 34x23 suits me for the majority of hills I have to go up. I found once I had stopped racing a 39x23 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

53x42 - drop three at the back
53x39 - drop four at the back
50x34 - 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 53x42/39 for everyday riding. You will of course look gay and people will point and laugh at you as you ride past!!!

Regards

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)