Compact vs Triple

[RolliePollie]

I have a triple and I pretty much use every gear combo on every ride...but I ride loads of hills. I think it depends on the terrain where you'll be riding. I would not give up my triple but it's only because I'd never make it up some of my hills if I didn't have my granny gear!

[Miranda]

My knowledge of switching the parts out is humble, but I do know that anything doesn't feel good to do ends up being something I don't look forward to doing.

My road bike has a triple. While I don't live in mountain land, I know my body could not probably take just having a double. Regardless of how strong my muscles are, I have some medical issues with weak facshia. Anything that causes me to torq on that tissue more than it can take, means pain = don't do it. My heart rate typically can take a lot more that the body parts, and recover.

Now, my situation is a bit unique, but the same principle still applies. With only having the double on the bike, will you look at a hilly route and think "ooohhh, dread/groan, grumble (maybe even avoid it)..." in time because the tools you have (a double vs a triple) to do it with make the activity a PITA, vs generally enjoyable (what the ride should be).

Just some food for thought.

[Bluetree]

Changing cassettes is a very easy way to get a wide range of gearing on a compact. Once you get the hang of it, it's very simple. I have compacts on both my road bikes and change out anything from an 11-23 to a 13-29!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a triple. But the reasons why I gave up a triple is twofold. First is size/weight. I admit that I'm a weight weenie and I get a perverse sense of satisfaction getting my bike down to 14 lbs. Plus, shorter carbon cranks (sub 170) don't come in standard sizes very often.

But the biggest reason is quicker shifting. This may not be an issue with non-racers, but riding a triple turned out to be a big problem when riding hills/rollers with my racer-type friends. Upon cresting a hill or roller, the (bigger) guys can cruise for a few seconds and let their momentum caryy them as they upshift. With my lesser weight, I don't have the luxury of those few seconds as I would be dropped immediately. I have to get in my big ring quickly and immediately, and start mashing down the hill as hard as I can. Same as whwn the downhill suddenly becomes an uphill. That was cumbersome with a triple, and more than once I dropped a chain, and got dropped by the ride. When I got a compact, those issues disappeared. Two chainrings instead of three def. made my life easier.

[Crankin]

I'm like Miranda. I have always had a triple; right before I got my Kuota, I was actually thinking about switching out my 11-25 triple on my Trek 5200 for a compact double. I'm glad I didn't because about a year later, we moved to our house on a 10-15% grade hill. After about 2 months with my Kuota, we switched out both of our bikes to 11-27s.
I spin every chance I can get; mashing really aggravates my fibromyalgia. I've also lost a bit of strength in the past couple of years and I like the option of having lower gears. I am an OK climber for an "old lady," but I am not getting any younger...
Now, I am not a racer, but I do regularly climb steep grades. They are not usually long, but they are grades that a lot of people might walk. I definitely could not get up them without my triple. This summer was the first time I EVER got off my bike and walked up a very steep (18%) climb that was very long. At that point, I was thinking about Lisa's mountain gearing I had seen the day before! But, I was able to get back on the bike and finish the climb, which was not very easy, even after the steepest part.
And btw, my bike weighs about 15.5 pounds (without my bag).
If you are not racing, you need to think about the type of riding you do and not care what anyone else thinks. I've never had any trouble with my Ultegra triples.

[RoadRaven]

My 2c
I have only ever ridden a triple off-road on my entry-level mountain bike.

I have a 10 speed compact crank set on what is now my training bike (roadie). 50-34 on the front, 27-12 on the back. I raced on my EMC2 FemetapePro for about a year before getting a better race bike and turning this one into a pure road-training bike. I climbed several hills with gradients of 15-18%, I am no hill climber and did not have to get off and walk, though at times I was only going at 4 -5kph.

It does everything I require - my smallest gear gets me up hills, my biggest gear allows me , on the flat, to crank it up to about 35kph for short bursts (or about 48kph for ages with a tail wind).

The only issue I had with the compact was when I first got it (and sometimes still have), was changing in the middle of the block - sometimes I couldn't quite find the 'right' gear to be in and would spend some time changing around trying to find the 'right' place to be. That was no good during racing.

But apart from that it does everything I need.

[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

[aicabsolut]

I ride the swiss alps on a compact / 11-27 Ultegra. I'm fine. I'll struggle with 15-20% slopes but 8-12% is peachy.

I ride a compact (50/36) with a 12-27 cassette. That is equivalent to a 50/34 with a 12-25. I struggle in the mountains only when the grades get upwards of 15% as well. Over 20% is really really tough. However, long sustained climbs from anywhere in the 6-12% range is doable. I'm thinking of taking my old frame and putting a 50/34 on it (using my same cassette) to get just one more gear for riding the mountains.

My compact is perfect for my usual terrain and racing. I run out of gears on the top end more often than on the low end. If I lived in the mountains, I might prefer a triple, but I think even then I'd be more inclined to just put more gears on the back--like maybe a 50/34 with a SRAM or DA7900 cassette with a 28 cog. It's not that much of a difference in gear inches, but my current gearing is *almost* enough for steep grades.

[xeney]

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

Okay, good point, and I should have said that if she knew on the test ride that she wanted lower gears, she should be sure to get those lower gears before she buys the bike. Whether that means a triple or something else.

[OakLeaf]

I wonder if distance makes a difference, too. And whether you're riding with others. For a short ride, maybe you can "live with" an uncomfortable cadence; if you're alone, maybe you can maintain your preferred cadence but not ride your first choice of pace. But if you're going to be out for hours - or if you're trying to stay with other riders - you don't have that luxury.

With a compact, yes you can get some pretty low gears, but you're going to be losing gears in the very range that you ride the most. That's not just an issue for racers. IMO it's just as important for less strong riders. I wonder if the preponderance of strong but casual riders on this board is the reason there seems to be so much preference for compacts.

Also, if you're running out of high gears, that means you're not going to have as much momentum on descents to propel you up the next hill.

Of the two groups I ride with, in the stronger and faster group (B/A-) about half of them run triples; in the slower group (C+/B+) ALL of them do. The slower group is mostly composed of people who ride 7-10,000 miles a year, just at a slower pace.

As has also been pointed out when the topic has come up before, it depends on how much you plan to haul, too. If you're commuting or touring, your needs are very much different from a day rider's.

[aicabsolut]

I wonder if distance makes a difference, too. And whether you're riding with others. For a short ride, maybe you can "live with" an uncomfortable cadence; if you're alone, maybe you can maintain your preferred cadence but not ride your first choice of pace. But if you're going to be out for hours - or if you're trying to stay with other riders - you don't have that luxury.

With a compact, yes you can get some pretty low gears, but you're going to be losing gears in the very range that you ride the most. That's not just an issue for racers. IMO it's just as important for less strong riders. I wonder if the preponderance of strong but casual riders on this board is the reason there seems to be so much preference for compacts.

Also, if you're running out of high gears, that means you're not going to have as much momentum on descents to propel you up the next hill.

That's not necessarily true. Even in races, I rarely run out of gears on either end. Therefore, the range of gears that I need the most is precisely what I have on my compact.

The 50/12 is plenty of gear for me for sprinting, unless there's a major tailwind or downhill sprint. Most of the sprints in my races tend to be uphill, and there, it's my legs holding me back and not my gearing. My cassette is a bit spaced out, but I don't have a big problem finding the right cruising gear. It can get more challenging in a TT, and sometimes it can be hard to draft off of someone with vastly different gearing at the low end of the cassette (where the jumps between cogs is greater for me).

As for descending, I can hit over 40mph on descents where I've outspun my hardest gear. That's fast enough for me. Depending on what's next, that momentum may not do that much for the next climb. It certainly won't help in mountain regions where you have really long climbs and really long descents. It only helps on rolling terrain where you are constantly going up and down. There, usually the descents aren't enough that I'm really wishing I had a 53 up front. In fact, I like being able to pop over some rollers in the 50 and not having to shift so much.

I don't have any problems staying with a group or riding for 4+ hours in the mountains because of my compact. If I can't keep up, then a triple isn't really going to help me much. I'd be able to spin a little faster, but I'm still not keeping up with the boys running standard cranksets. My compact only *possibly* holds me back on the flats when I'm getting dropped at 30+mph, but really, would i be able to sustain that speed with harder gears for any longer? Doubtful.

I don't think that distance makes much of a difference or being a strong casual rider (whatever that means) versus a strong serious rider or a racer or whatever. Instead, crankset preferences seem to have a lot to do with riding style, strength, terrain, joint health, and similar factors. For example, if I'd be hitting those 20% grades regularly, I'd want a triple to 1) keep my knees happier, and 2) reduce the chance that I'd have to get off and walk because of #1 or when my fitness lags. Overall, the compact works just fine for me.

Also, based on your group ride examples, it seems like a triple is needed because of your terrain. As a counter example, I ride with one faster group back home and I'm probably the only one with a compact (everyone else has standard gearing and itty bitty cassettes)--because it is FLAT. How long you ride or how strong you are and what your preferred cadence is relative to your strength is only part of the equation.

[lunacycles]

Switching a bike like the Madone to a triple with mountain bike-like gearing in the rear (anything lower than 27t, usually) will not only necessitate a new cassette, but also new brifters (and sometimes new derailleurs). MTB cassettes (11-32, 11-34) are 9 speed and the Madone is set up for a road 10-speed, hence necessitating different shifters if you make that switch--in order to shift properly.

So it is a major deal, labor and parts wise, to make the change (basically a new drivetrain), and don't be surprised if the LBS has to charge you something additional to the bike price to secure both the sale and any kind of profit. That being said, if you really want the low gear options, the time to decide that is when you are purchasing the bike as the shop will be most willing to do what is necessary at minimal extra charge in order to get the sale.

If set up properly, a triple crank shifts as well as a compact (often better, imo), and adds more options at minimal weight penalty.

Margo

[madscot13]

I ride a compact (50/36) with a 12-27 cassette. That is equivalent to a 50/34 with a 12-25. I struggle in the mountains only when the grades get upwards of 15% as well. Over 20% is really really tough. However, long sustained climbs from anywhere in the 6-12% range is doable. I'm thinking of taking my old frame and putting a 50/34 on it (using my same cassette) to get just one more gear for riding the mountains.

My compact is perfect for my usual terrain and racing. I run out of gears on the top end more often than on the low end. If I lived in the mountains, I might prefer a triple, but I think even then I'd be more inclined to just put more gears on the back--like maybe a 50/34 with a SRAM or DA7900 cassette with a 28 cog. It's not that much of a difference in gear inches, but my current gearing is *almost* enough for steep grades.

where do you go for local mountains? I'm not too bad with the hills around here, but I would like to get better on steeper climbs for the spring.

[tulip]

where do you go for local mountains? I'm not too bad with the hills around here, but I would like to get better on steeper climbs for the spring.

Are you in MN or DC? If you're in DC, go west to the Shenandoah, Blue Ridge Parkway, Harrisonburg. Skyline Drive from Front Royal to Big Meadows is a great ride--stay over night at the Lodge and come back "down" (almost as much climbing as "up" the next day. Of course, you will need access to a car to get there. I drove there, stayed overnight at the Super8 in Front Royal, rode up, stayed at the lodge, rode down, and drove home. I have a compact double and I was fine. In fact, too much empty spinning gives me knee pain so I'm better off pushing a bit.

You can also find some decent climbing around Purceville in Maryland. Or up towards Gettysburg, PA. Lots of options, but a car is necessary to get there.

[aicabsolut]

where do you go for local mountains? I'm not too bad with the hills around here, but I would like to get better on steeper climbs for the spring.

I go to the Charlottesville area and near Staunton for more hills, but I haven't done the mountain climbs there (such as the climb up to Skyline--once you're on Skyline Drive it's about as rolling as anywhere else in the area).

I go to West Virginia just on the other side of the Valley for the closest mountain climbs. Those are pretty challenging--they don't start throwing in switchbacks until the climbs get REALLY steep. Otherwise, it's just long, mostly straight shots up. That makes descending more fun too (tight, steep, narrow road switchbacks coming down are almost as bad as going up).

check out this place: www.lostriverbarn.com
They're about booked up for the good dates this spring already. The barn is situated at the top of a 2,000ft high mountain. The only way to get home from any side is pretty much straight up for 5-7 miles.