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.
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 🙄
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)
