# Road bike with triple chainset:any recommendations



## mik (11 Aug 2009)

I'm looling for a decent roadbike with a triple chainset and was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for me. Budget is about £600-1000

or would it be better just to go with a compact?

Im just concerned that will find myself 1/4 of the way up a hill with no where left to go


----------



## aJohnson (11 Aug 2009)

I like my Trek 1.5 Triple...

However, I've never really gone to the lower cog, then again I've not been up any long very steep hills yet.


----------



## John the Monkey (11 Aug 2009)

I have a triple on my Giant SCR2.0

The triple on my bike is 30/39/50 (top two rings are, therefore, the same as some compacts). I've used the granny ring on it a couple of times - I don't use it a lot, but I'm always glad it's there...


----------



## Mortiroloboy (11 Aug 2009)

Go for a compact chainset and get a medium drop cage rear derailleur which will allow for a slightly larger low gear cog, say 13t 27t that combination of 34t 27t will get you up most hills, well it would round here, but then there is hills, and then there is hills

You can always get off to walk, it's not illegal to do so!

Someone will be along shortly to challenge that last statement, and hopefully give a fuller explanantion of gear ratios, but essentially a compact generally has 34 teeth on the inner ring and 50 teeth on the outer ring, the rear cogs come in a wide variety ; 11t 23t/ 11t 25t /12t 25t /13t 26t/ and so on, different manufacturers have different groupings.

I run Campagnolo gears on both my road bikes, they are both set up exactly the same with a compact 34t 50t chainset and a 13t 26t cassette, this suits my terrain.


----------



## I am Spartacus (11 Aug 2009)

Don't waste your money on a compact.


----------



## Downward (11 Aug 2009)

Another Triple v Compact debate ?
I can't decide which one to go for either. Still waiting for my voucher !
But £600 - £1k is a fair leap in budget EG The Trek 1.2 is £600 and the 1.7 is £950.


----------



## I am Spartacus (11 Aug 2009)

No debate really, you just dont need one in the UK


----------



## Kestevan (11 Aug 2009)

After the White Rose Challenge this year I'm decided.....

My next bike will definately be a triple. You may only use the granny ring a couple of times (depends on where you live); but having one and riding up the hills is much better than not having one, and being passed by everyone else riding up the hills.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2009)

Don't listen to people who say you don't need a triple. If You want a triple, then get one.

I have just ordered on of *these*



mik said:


> I'm looling for a decent roadbike with a triple chainset and was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for me. Budget is about £600-1000
> 
> or would it be better just to go with a compact?
> 
> Im just concerned that will find myself 1/4 of the way up a hill with no where left to go


----------



## trustysteed (11 Aug 2009)

i've also got a Giant SCR 2.0 with a triple, changed the original 12-25 to an 11-34 and now i can get up all those pesky hills that were eluding me!

you need to enjoy what you're doing on a bike. if you're hating inclines because you don't have the gears, then change your gears so you can enjoy!


----------



## bonj2 (11 Aug 2009)

mik said:


> I'm looling for a decent roadbike with a triple chainset and was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for me. Budget is about £600-1000
> 
> or would it be better just to go with a compact?
> 
> Im just concerned that will find myself 1/4 of the way up a hill with no where left to go



have a look at condor cycles, they dont' list any as having triple but they build them up i think so i'm sure they'll put you one on if you like.


----------



## mik (11 Aug 2009)

thanks for all your responces and suggestions..youve certaintly given me some food for thought...however being the wrong side of fifty I have decided I had better go with the triple chainset as I suspect that the law of diminishing returns will be coming into play when faced with some climbs.... so once more unto the catalogues dear friends


----------



## PC_Arcade (13 Aug 2009)

Is there any reason not to go for a triple with a compact cassette?

I must admit compact vs traditional confuses me


----------



## lukesdad (15 Aug 2009)

No reason at all ,if, by compact cassette you mean close ratio road cassette. Compact refers to the Chainset imported from Mtbing


----------



## jimboalee (15 Aug 2009)

OP.

What you should be asking is :-

"There are some x% hills around my locality. What Off The Peg bikes have gearing for them?"


----------



## PC_Arcade (16 Aug 2009)

lukesdad said:


> No reason at all ,if, by compact cassette you mean close ratio road cassette. Compact refers to the Chainset imported from Mtbing



Thank you


----------



## Jonathan M (16 Aug 2009)

Ribble can supply any of their bikes with a triple subject to the groupset you choose having a triple option.

Triple vs compact is purely down to choice, I run triples, I'm not an overly fit rider, I don't race, I ride for fun and to improve fitness, and if a triple gives me a bail-out option that means I can ride a hill rather than walk it, then I'm all for it.

Weight is slightly more with a triple bike, but seeing as I currently weight 16st I feel that I have a lot of weight to loose before I start being bothered about the weight of my bikes!


----------



## De Sisti (17 Aug 2009)

Order a triple from Spa Cycles with 50/34/26 chainrings. That way you'll have 
the ratio of a compact with the bailout granny ring. That's what I've done on
one of my bikes.


----------



## Fizzypigeon (17 Aug 2009)

Depends where you live and how fit you are I would have thought.
The weight saving is minimal.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Aug 2009)

Jonathan M said:


> Ribble can supply any of their bikes with a triple subject to the groupset you choose having a triple option.
> 
> *Triple vs compact is purely down to choice*, I run triples, I'm not an overly fit rider, I don't race, I ride for fun and to improve fitness, and if a triple gives me a bail-out option that means I can ride a hill rather than walk it, then I'm all for it.
> 
> Weight is slightly more with a triple bike, but seeing as I currently weight 16st I feel that I have a lot of weight to loose before I start being bothered about the weight of my bikes!



Of course it is.

You make the choice after studying the map to see what hills are to be climbed.


----------



## Downward (19 Aug 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> You make the choice after studying the map to see what hills are to be climbed.



Plus it's down to your fitness level.


----------



## rich p (19 Aug 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> You make the choice after studying the map to see what hills are to be climbed.



Well when I bought my first ike a few years back I had no idea thet I would be taking it up the Ventoux and Tourmalet so the local map may not be too useful.
At 50+ I would agree with the OP that he should err on the side of caution with a triple.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Aug 2009)

rich p said:


> Well when I bought my first ike a few years back I had no idea thet I would be taking it up the Ventoux and Tourmalet so *the local map may not be too useful.*
> At 50+ I would agree with the OP that he should err on the side of caution with a triple.



Which local maps? The Ventoux and Tourmalet or Brighton?


----------



## rich p (20 Aug 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Which local maps? The Ventoux and Tourmalet or Brighton?



Exactly my point!


----------



## jimboalee (20 Aug 2009)

rich p said:


> Exactly my point!



What point?

Only an idiot looks for Mt Ventoux on a map of Sussex.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Aug 2009)

Take for instance when I go to my other house is South San Francisco.

I don't plan a cycling trip up into Marin Co. by unfolding the OS map of Stratford upon Avon!


----------



## rich p (20 Aug 2009)

jimboalee said:


> What point?
> 
> Only an idiot looks for Mt Ventoux on a map of Sussex.





jimboalee said:


> Take for instance when I go to my other house is South San Francisco.
> 
> I don't plan a cycling trip up into Marin Co. by unfolding the OS map of Stratford upon Avon!



You really are a very rude man, aren't you.

My point, in answer to your assertion that when deciding on gearing, you shoud look at a map of where you're going to ride, was that I didn't know ,when buying the bike, that I would be taking it up Ventoux and Tourmalet 5 years later. The local map, which was where I started riding it would have been of little use , as it turned out. 

I shall leave that as my last word on the thread and you can abuse somebody else and show off your massive intellect and technical expertise to those who can be bothered to wade through it.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Aug 2009)

rich p said:


> Well when I bought my first ike a few years back *I had no idea thet I would be taking it up the Ventoux and Tourmalet so the local map may not be too useful.*
> At 50+ I would agree with the OP that he should err on the side of caution with a triple.



I am only rude to those who post what are worded to be sarcastic and stupid comments.


----------



## MacB (20 Aug 2009)

isn't it weird, I like Jim and like, and have met, Rich, yet they don't seem to get along. Last time I thought Rich had got the wrong end of the stick this time it's Jim.

Jimbo, the original post from Rich was fair comment and I thought the posting style amusing as well, and he's not a Nun!


----------



## jimboalee (20 Aug 2009)

I've cooled down now.

My post ( #20 ) said "You make the choice after studying the map to see what hills are to be climbed".

Rich's post ( #22 ) said "so the local map may not be too useful".

This was confusing because in my post #20, I did not refer to the 'local' map. I initially thought Rich meant the local map of the two mountains and it did not follow that the local map "may not be too useful".
My secondary thoughts were that Rich was being flippant and sarcastic for no apparent reason. Or had he? Maybe Rich's comprehension of my post #20 was that it was a bit abrupt. It reads that way after review, and I apologise.

Abrupt maybe, but very valid. A good look at a contour map of the intended route is sensible. Estimating the gradients and subsequent gear choice ( with necessary changes ) is the mark of a seasoned and experienced cyclist.

Luckily in this day and age, most OTP bikes come with a wide enough range of gearing to accommodate all but the steepest of insane hills. In past years, mass produced bikes came with 'fashion' gears which were far too high and totally wrong for beginner - average cyclists.

We won't go into the 'witchcraft' thing again. It has been seen a triple or Compact chainset with a sizable cassette is indeed 'overkill' for hills without a single chevron on the OS map.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (20 Aug 2009)

ianrauk said:


> Don't listen to people who say you don't need a triple. If You want a triple, then get one.
> 
> I have just ordered on of *these*




Hold on a minute!!! - didn't you buy a Roubaix a few weeks ago? 

That's not fair.....even though I've just ordered a new bike* too  - only one mind!


*compact


----------

