Compact vs Triple

[xeney]

To me, this answers the question:

I live in a very hilly area, and I did notice that when climbing, I was wishing for some smaller gears.

If you are wishing for them on the test ride, you are going to have times when you want them. I'd go for a triple.

[RoadRaven]

I agree with xeney, but only if the triple actually gives you a lower gear then a compact set, or 'normal' double.

Sometimes a triple gives no true advantage, and adds only the complexity of an extra ring to contend with.

Sometimes the only real advantage is psychological, that is, "the shop guy tells me if you have a triple I can climb anything, and I have a triple, therefore I can"

Sometimes cyclists new to understanding bikes and gearing dont get told (or dont believe - like me) that sometimes it is easier to go up a gear to climb a hill and NOT be in your lowest gear.

Bluetree makes a great point early in this thread - a triple weighs more than a double, and if you want to get up a hill more quickly every little bit you shed helps.

Ask at the shop what the options are in terms of lowest gearing and then bring all the numbers back to us if you feel unsure...

For example, here are my stats [front // back // lowest gear]:

50-34 // 27-12 // 34-27(training bike) - gets me up a local 800metre, 18% climb at about 4.8kph

53-39 // 27-12 // 39-27 (road race bike) - tough on a hill but do-able as the bike itself is very light and responsive

52-39 // 27-13 // 39-27 (time trial road bike) - but I avoid hills on this because the bike itself is heavy. The low front end combined with aero bars makes hills difficult and uncomfortable