# Double or triple chainset?



## Flyingfox (19 Jun 2011)

I've come to the conclusion that I would like a road bike as well as my hybrid.

My price range is around £700-800 and have been looking around but not made any decision yet, but need to narrow my search. One question I have is whether to go for a double or triple chainset - is there that much difference on a road bike.

My hybrid is a triple (48,38,28 with 13,25) and I struggle on some hills as it is not the lightest of bikes and I do suffer from asthma.


----------



## rockyraccoon (19 Jun 2011)

You have answer your own question there. You hybrid quite low gears.. if you are struggling with that you should look for a road bike that has lower gears as many as possible. So the front lower than 28 and for the back greater than 26. 

I don't know what is the lowest chaining you can get on a road bike but the cassette can be easily replaced.


----------



## aberal (19 Jun 2011)

A double with a 28 cog at the rear and a 34 small chainring at the front will give you a lower gear than a triple with a 30 small chainring at the front and a 25 cog at the rear. So the short answer is, no you don't need a triple to get a low enough gear. I have a triple with the gearing I've just described and it's a pointless palaver compared to a simple compact double at the front.


----------



## DCCD (19 Jun 2011)

I'd agree with aberal. A road bike should be lighter than your hybrid too. Sram Apex do a compact with 34/50 front and 11-32 rear cassette.
That may prove tricky to find on something in budget but you'd not be too far off.


----------



## Flyingfox (19 Jun 2011)

Thanks guys, I'll check out what is available with a double compact with the ratio you mentioned but won't rule out a triple. I guess ultimately I should try before I buy - now for which type of gears!!!


----------



## srw (19 Jun 2011)

Before you jump, have another look around the forum. The most common advice is to go for a triple. The weight penalty is negligible, the faff is non-existent, and you get three useful chainrings - one for going quickly, one for going normally and one for going up hills. People with compacts commonly report that they regularly change between chainrings.


----------



## aberal (19 Jun 2011)

srw said:


> Before you jump, have another look around the forum. The most common advice is to go for a triple. The weight penalty is negligible, the faff is non-existent, and you get three useful chainrings - one for going quickly, one for going normally and one for going up hills. People with compacts commonly report that they regularly change between chainrings.



I disagree with everything you have just said, other than the negligibility of the weight, which is irrelevant. But each to their own, it boils down to personal choice at the end of the day. IMO triples are unnecessary on the average road bike for the average rider except for full blown touring and perhaps audax.


----------



## PaulSecteur (19 Jun 2011)

I like tripples, and heres for why...

I have a tripple on my secteur (10 speed) and tricross (9 speed), and in all honesty in normal riding I cant remember having to go down to the granny ring. Before these bikes I used a roadied up mountain bike with an 11-32 cassette and one of the major annoyances was the gaps in ratios of the 3 larger cogs on the cassette. Its hard to describe, but imagine driving a car with 8 gears, but 2nd and 4th are broken, you just cant seem to match your speed to the revs you want.

With a tripple that doesnt happen, and if you do need a lower gear the granny is there for that.

I dont really agree with the "tripples are complicated" arguement, its just moving a lever.


----------



## aberal (19 Jun 2011)

PaulSecteur said:


> I like tripples, and heres for why...
> 
> I have a tripple on my secteur (10 speed) and tricross (9 speed), and in all honesty in normal riding I cant remember having to go down to the granny ring.



Then you don't need a triple. You don't even need a compact if you don't use the granny ring. You could live with a 52-42 which used to standard off the shelf for road bikes. The issue with the "missing gears" happens with a triple too - both my bikes have triples and I often have to move up a gear or two when I drop into a lower chainring. Granted it can be slightly greater a shift with a compact but the principle is the same - you just have to adjust your gear changing to compensate. It's no big deal.


----------



## ColinJ (19 Jun 2011)

aberal said:


> A double with a 28 cog at the rear and a 34 small chainring at the front will give you a lower gear than a triple with a 30 small chainring at the front and a 25 cog at the rear. So the short answer is, no you don't need a triple to get a low enough gear. I have a triple with the gearing I've just described and it's a pointless palaver compared to a simple compact double at the front.


A 34/28 gear is 1.214:1 and a 30/25 is only 1.200:1 so the 30/25 is actually a lower gear, but only slightly. 

I have a 30/28 bottom gear on my triple and I use every gear I have. Mind you, I'm 3 stone overweight and I do cycle up lots of 15-25% hills ...

I haven't used a compact chainset so I can't comment from experience, but I don't like the idea of a 147% step up to the big ring (50?). On my triple, the steps between the rings are 130% and 133%.

I like the gears on my Cannondale when I am fit enough to use them - a 13-29 cassette and standard 53/39 chainset (136% step).


----------



## APK (20 Jun 2011)

Like you, I am new to road bikes, and also suffer from some breathing issues, my Allez is a triple, as I bought secondhand, I don't use the granny ring much, but do struggle on hills, and there have been times when I have used the lowest gear, so have been glad I had it.

There seems to be a degree of macho bs around triples, in that real men don't need them! I have yet to hear a convincing argument against, as the extra weight/complexity is minimal, at the moment I am glad I have it, maybe as I get fitter I will use less and less, and maybe my next bike will be a compact, but for now I would take the tripple and leave all options open.


----------



## numbnuts (20 Jun 2011)

triple


----------



## rockyraccoon (20 Jun 2011)

I had a double which was replaced for a compact. Sometimes I wished I had a triple.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (20 Jun 2011)

There's only really two choices: an ordinary 39/52 double if you are a good club rider (or better) or the same thing with an extra inner ring fitted if you are a more average rider or attracted to the hills / slightly older / more robustly constructed / slight asthma, etc

The compact chainset is a marketing coup that has tapped into both the manufactures' need to restrict inventory levels at each price point and the vanity of some riders.

Although to be fair, they probably work for the average continental rider's need for some extra help before tackling rides like the Etape du Tour or Marmotte etc. In these they ride along the valley in the big ring, arrive at the bottom of some col, drop into the small ring at the front and then sit in that for the next two hours. As they crest the top of the climb, it's back into the big ring for the hour long descent and ride along to the next climb. Even to do a monstrously long day like the Marmotte probably only requires four down shifts and three up shifts at the front in 12 hours! UK riding is not like that - it's up and down all day with viscous kicks and some ridiculously steep longer climbs if that is your fancy. More is better!


----------



## pepecat (20 Jun 2011)

My trek 1.2 (entry level - £550 ish) has a triple at the front, and while most of the time i stay on the middle ring, the 'granny ring' does come in useful for a spot of granny spinning up a hill or two. If I"m feeling energetic on the way home, there's a lovely long very gradual descent where you can click onto the big front ring and really get some speed going. 
Go for the triple!


----------



## Cletus Van Damme (20 Jun 2011)

Like yourself I came from a hybrid that was a triple and I also struggle with hills due to a knee op last year. So when it came to buying a road bike I just thought that a tripple was the logical choice. I am very pleased with my choice. I do most of my cycling on the middle ring, but any decent hills and they are all over the place in Cumbria I am right down on the granny ring.


----------



## lulubel (20 Jun 2011)

My bike came with a triple as standard, and I'm glad I have it. I don't use the granny ring very often, but when I do it's because I need it, either because I'm coming towards the end of a ride and I'm tired, or because I've come to a steeper hill than I'm used to, or even because I'm going up a steepish hill with the wind blowing a gale in my face.

So, I'd recommend a triple for those reasons. And, if you get a triple and find the 30/25 gear still isn't low enough for you, you can change the rear cassette and get lower gears still. If you've already got a double with a 34/28 on, and you need lower gears, you're either faced with the cost/complication of changing to a triple, or a new cassette and rear mech that will work with it.


----------



## PK99 (20 Jun 2011)

APK said:


> I have yet to hear a convincing argument against, as the extra weight/complexity is minimal,



If your cycling is such that the extra weight of a triple over a compact would make a significant different - you don't need either, you are fit enough to ride a standard double!


----------



## Hacienda71 (20 Jun 2011)

I have had both and my current bike is a triple. The granny ring is rarely used but after 60 miles in the Peninnes I have been known to need it as a get me home gear when on a nasty climb. The argument that a triple doesnt give you a better ratio is a bit spurious as you can put the same range cassette on a triple as a compact. So unless you have a 50:30 compact then the triple can give you a far better potential ratio. If you are worried about the additional weight make sure you visit the little boys room before the ride.


----------



## lejogger (20 Jun 2011)

I'm not going to shout about why get this or why get that, but just mention that you should really check out the SRAM Apex gruppo while researching your next bike. It would be in your price range as I think the Boardman Road Comp has it which is £799.

I was looking for a commuter/tourer recently, and settled on the a bike with this groupset. I was really worried about touring as I thought I would really struggle to manage sustained climbing while fully laden and days into big riding, but it has really been excellent. The range is fantastic, and I don't notice any massive gaps between the ratios as another post mentioned. 

I agree with PK99, you are probably fit enough to ride a standard or compact double, but the Apex is a fantastic compromise if you're unsure.


----------



## MacB (20 Jun 2011)

Do not listen to anyone that says a triple isn't needed, a compact is just as good or to just toughen up and ride a proper double. Look at how you ride, what your realistic expectations are and get what suits that, the weight on an additional inner is negligible for all but the most weight weenie racers. Tim B was right, a double if you're fit enough or a triple, ie double plus inner, if you want a bit more. A triple also allows for a closer ratio cassette.

On my road hybrid I had a 30/42/52, with 12-26, the 52 ring was entirely unused and the 30t became a rare occurrence as I got fitter. On my new custom bike I specced a 24/36/46 triple currently with 11-28 but will go to 12-25. Due to my current level of fitness, or lack thereof, yesterdays ride saw me using the 36t ring and a couple of times the 24t, the 46t wasn't needed I never went beyond about 80 gear inches. As my fitness and weight improve I would expect to start using the 46t and the 24t could go months without being touched.

But in either case I was, and am, mighty glad that the inner ring option is there and also glad that the setups have meant very few front changes.


----------



## ColinJ (20 Jun 2011)

Tim Bennet. said:


> The compact chainset is a marketing coup that has tapped into both the manufactures' need to restrict inventory levels at each price point and the vanity of some riders.
> 
> Although to be fair, they probably work for the average continental rider's need for some extra help before tackling rides like the Etape du Tour or Marmotte etc. In these they ride along the valley in the big ring, arrive at the bottom of some col, drop into the small ring at the front and then sit in that for the next two hours. As they crest the top of the climb, it's back into the big ring for the hour long descent and ride along to the next climb. Even to do a monstrously long day like the Marmotte probably only requires four down shifts and three up shifts at the front in 12 hours! UK riding is not like that - it's up and down all day with viscous kicks and some ridiculously steep longer climbs if that is your fancy. More is better!


Yes, that's it!

On some of my forum rides round here, you'd be changing compact chainrings ever few minutes and you'd often be on a ring that was slightly too big or slightly too small and be irritated by the big step when changing rings. When I'm fit, I spend a lot of time on the 39 middle ring (or the smaller of my Cannondale's two rings which is also a 39).

When I weighed less than 12 stone, I didn't need to use the granny ring for a whole year so I effectively used a double chainset on my Basso, or I used my Cannondale. At 15.5 stone now, I spend an awful lot of time climbing on the granny ring. I don't think a compact chainset would suit me.


----------



## HLaB (20 Jun 2011)

Flyingfox, you'll gain a lot with a road bike being lighter and a compact will more than likely suffice I've been up really steep hills on my 38/52 (11-25) compact and my 39/53 (12-25) double and couldn't imagine my lower geared but heavier hybrid being capable but only you (and your doctor perhaps) will know the extent of your Asthma and if you enjoy a challenge (I do), if in doubt I'd plug for the tripple rather than regretting not having a few extra gears down the line.


----------



## HLaB (20 Jun 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Yes, that's it!
> 
> On some of my forum rides round here, you'd be changing compact chainrings ever few minutes and you'd often be on a ring that was *slightly **too big or slightly too small* and be irritated by the big step when changing rings.



+1

My old Sirrus has a tripple and although now relegated to my turbo its got my favourite gear range being a 30/42/52 (12-26). I did most of my riding in the 52 but occasionally I would drop to the 42 and comfortably spin in fast group. The granny was seldom used but it was nice to have there as a psychological back up ;-) The 38 and 39 on my other bikes are just a tad too low for spinning in a fast group and 34 (the more common) would be far too low for me.


----------



## Lien Sdrawde (21 Jun 2011)

Some really useful info here - and i'm in the process of upgrading, so this helped confirm I still need a triple.


----------



## endoman (21 Jun 2011)

As I am getting fitter I am using the granny ring less and less on my hybrid, most of this mornings commute was in the 48 , a little on the 38 and none on the 28. 

I use the 28 for one hill on the return, road bike arrives next week with a compact, will be interesting to see how that goes. Will report back


----------



## Banjo (21 Jun 2011)

A lot depends on where you live / intend to ride as well as your cycling fitness. I have a triple on my roadbike plus a 11 to 28 cassette. The 30 chainring and 28tooth cog gives a very low gear for getting over a big hill on tired legs.

If I only did 25 mile rides or lived in Lincolnshire/ Norfolk a double would be great but doing longer rides in South Wales and not being the strongest cyclist my triple suits me fine.


----------



## MacB (21 Jun 2011)

Banjo said:


> A lot depends on where you live / intend to ride as well as your cycling fitness. I have a triple on my roadbike plus a 11 to 28 cassette. The 30 chainring and 28tooth cog gives a very low gear for getting over a big hill on tired legs.
> 
> If I only did 25 mile rides or lived in Lincolnshire/ Norfolk a double would be great but doing longer rides in South Wales and not being the strongest cyclist my triple suits me fine.




very true and I'd add that I'd want to gear a bike for potential use, if it was a dedicated commuter, on a set route, then I'd go for the fewest/most reliable/cheapest(including longevity related costs) gear setup I could get away with.


----------



## ColinJ (21 Jun 2011)

Banjo said:


> A lot depends on where you live / intend to ride as well as your cycling fitness. I have a triple on my roadbike plus a 11 to 28 cassette. The 30 chainring and 28tooth cog gives a very low gear for getting over a big hill on tired legs.



True.



Lien Sdrawde said:


> Some really useful info here - and i'm in the process of upgrading, so this helped confirm I still need a triple.



Since Ashton-under-Lyne is only 5 miles west of the Peak District, I reckon a triple would be a wise investment.


----------



## Flyingfox (21 Jun 2011)

Thanks all, having read all the comments it is probably best to go for a triple - maybe I should have said at the start that I am female so don't have the strength that some of the guys on here have.

I am quite fit (if I go out cycling with my friends I'm usually miles ahead without even trying) and my asthma isn't too bad but I do have a tendency to keel over on hills during the pollen season and very cold weather.

I shall have a wander around some bike shops and try before I buy.


----------



## User482 (21 Jun 2011)

Another vote for the triple: most of my riding is done in the middle and big rings, where I have, but I still have the emergency bail-out gears for when I'm knackered and a long way from home.

With a compact you can have a wide range or close ratios; a triple does both.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (21 Jun 2011)

> you should really check out the SRAM Apex gruppo


Thanks I just have. 

Again it's a triumph of marketing over substance. They have matched a regular compact chainset (50/34) with a 11-32 mountainbike rear cassette. Hardly new or original as loads of other people have been doing it with mix and match Shimano parts for years. 

But for any given rear cassette, a triple will give you a greater range as well as less jump between changes on the front, and thereby lessening the chances that you will need a double shift. If you match that 11-32 rear cassette with a 26/40/50 triple, you get such a wide range of gears that it's been the standard touring set up since the mid 70s when we all did it with TA components.

Certainly, if you live in regular rolling country (let alone the flatlands), then a road double - a 40/50 or 39/52 combination - will be fine. But if you need lower gears, don't dick around with that set up. Leave it be as it will still serve you well for most of our riding - just add a little, extra ring to the front for when you need it.


----------



## StuAff (21 Jun 2011)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Thanks I just have. Again it's a triumph of marketing over substance. They have matched a regular compact chainset (50/34) with a 11-32 mountainbike rear cassette. Hardly new or original as loads of other people have been doing it with mix and match Shimano parts for years. But for any given rear cassette, a triple will give you a greater range as well as less jump between changes on the front, and thereby lessening the chances that you will need a double shift. If you match that 11-32 rear cassette with a 26/40/50 triple, you get such a wide range of gears that it's been the standard touring set up since the mid 70s when we all did it with TA components. Certainly, if you live in regular rolling country (let alone the flatlands), then a road double - a 40/50 or 39/52 combination - will be fine. But if you need lower gears, don't dick around with that set up. Leave it be as it will still serve you well for most of our riding - just add a little, extra ring to the front for when you need it.


 For the OP, I agree a triple is the right idea. For many other people too. For touring bikes and weaker riders, in particular. But frankly, I take issue with the idea that compact chainsets and wide-range cassettes are 'marketing over substance'. There's a nice simple reason most sportive bikes, and many others, are specced with compact chainsets- they're what _most_ people who buy those bikes want to use, _most_ of the time. I know quite a few people who do European sportives like the Marmotte &amp; L'Etape du Tour. Compacts on all their bikes. They, as I did, know their own capabilities, the kind of terrain they ride over usually, and what and where they're aiming for, and they made their choice accordingly. My Viner's got a compact double and 12-27 (11 speed) on the back. According to some on here, that gives me gaping chasms between gears, or not enough at the top end....bunk. I'm happy with it, it gives me the range I need and use 99% of the time. I could go to a 29 tooth cassette if I wanted as well. Campagnolo don't do a triple for 11 speed, and I don't see why I'd want one on that bike. If I'm going to be quicker (or breathing easier!) walking up a hill than grinding up it, I'll do that. But the vast majority of the time, what I've got suits me. That's not down to marketing, it's common sense.


----------



## Sittingduck (21 Jun 2011)

If hills are an issue, a triple can only be a benefit. You won't lose out at the top end* but have additional low gears available for those nasty climbs!

*Assuming you're pitting a compact 34/50 against a (30/39/50) or similar triple, that is.


----------



## User482 (22 Jun 2011)

No, sportive bikes are fitted with compact doubles so people can kid themselves that they're fitter than they really are. It's a pointless compromise: if you need lower ratios than those offered by a standard double, you need a triple.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> No, sportive bikes are fitted with compact doubles so people can kid themselves that they're fitter than they really are. It's a pointless compromise: if you need lower ratios than those offered by a standard double, you need a triple.



I'll agree to disagree. I know how fit I'm not


----------



## Tim Bennet. (22 Jun 2011)

> I know quite a few people who do European sportives like the Marmotte &amp; L'Etape du Tour. Compacts on all their bikes. They, as I did, know their own capabilities, the kind of terrain they ride over usually, and what and where they're aiming for, and they made their choice accordingly.


If you read earlier in this thread you would see that the compact's suitability for European alpine sportives has been recognised. 
However this doesn't mean they are just as suitable for sportives, audaxes and generally fun riding in the uk.

Finally don't be so dismisses of them being a marketing ploy. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that market was 'demand lead'. It's one of the functions of marketing to create a demand and if as you say these days 'most people want compacts', it may only prove that the marketing campaigns have been successful. 

The small producers (Campag and Sram) ideally want to reduce tooling costs in their product lines. One way to restrict the number of components in their range is by eliminating the triple option. By doing this there is then no need for separate chainsets, and in particualr, since Campag have introduced the indexed front Ergolever, it has also eliminated the need for a triple version of this, the most complex and expensive component.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

Tim Bennet. said:


> If you read earlier in this thread you would see that the compact's suitability for European alpine sportives has been recognised.
> However this doesn't mean they are just as suitable for sportives, audaxes and generally fun riding in the uk.
> 
> Finally don't be so dismisses of them being a marketing ploy. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that market was 'demand lead'. It's one of the functions of marketing to create a demand and if as you say these days 'most people want compacts', it may only prove that the marketing campaigns have been successful.
> ...



I had seen that point....and there's no reason in your argument why compacts _aren't_ as suitable for the UK. Or for that matter, North America, Asia....Britain's terrain is hardly unique. 
I'm not arguing that there's no need for triples. But for many people on many bikes, they are less necessary with the right front chainring/rear cassette combo. Certainly some parts of the country where triples are very handy though..once or twice they'd have been useful for my LeJOG, though I'm not convinced they'd have saved me walking anywhere.
I'm sure Campagnolo and SRAM wouldn't consider themselves small...Shimano are increasingly moving away from triples on the higher-end groups as well. You can still get an Ultegra triple, but not the new Di2, and not Dura-Ace. And they're businesses- they're hardly going to try and sell stuff for which there's an increasingly small market at increasing cost to themselves, are they? Triples, like it or not, are a niche product & lower-end for road (as opposed to touring/audax) these days. The MTB market's going the same way as well.


----------



## User482 (22 Jun 2011)

Actually, there's a strong argument for going double on an MTB: close ratios are less critical (so a wider ratio cassette can be used), and the highest ratios on a triple are only of use on the road. But that said, my old 7-speed MTB is far more resilient to mud than my 9-speed, so I dread to think what 10-speed will be like.Tim makes a valid point regarding the use of compacts on rolling terrain - there's quite a jump between the front two rings. Not a problem with a triple...


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> Tim makes a valid point regarding the use of compacts on rolling terrain - there's quite a jump between the front two rings. Not a problem with a triple...



Whether it's actually a problem at all depends on how the rider perceives it.....as should be quite evident from previous threads here and elsewhere on the matter!


----------



## User482 (22 Jun 2011)

I can understand that it might not bother you, but it seems to be a curious compromise, all for the sake of ditching the granny ring. Personally, I don't even like the jump from 52 to 39!


----------



## Tim Bennet. (22 Jun 2011)

> though I'm not convinced they'd have saved me walking anywhere.


Walking? I'm sorry, but I was discussing cycling.
If you're happy to walk, then I guess you'll be happy with a compact.

And don't give me that old bull about being able to walk as fast. No one walking and pushing up hills on the Fred Whitton, on up Winnats Pass on the Phil Liggett, or in the Alps on Etapes has ever overtaken me when I've been riding in bottom gear.


----------



## MacB (22 Jun 2011)

StuAff said:


> Whether it's actually a problem at all depends on how the rider perceives it.....as should be quite evident from previous threads here and elsewhere on the matter!



Well there's individual perception, which must vary quite a bit otherwise we wouldn't have Fixed/SS and everything in between out to full triple derailleurs. But the marketing must influence those perceptions, as does the machismo bit. I would say that the amount of people carefully selecting appropriate gearing is far outweighed by the amount that go with what's on offer or suggested by the shop. 

If you take a fairly standard compact setup of 50/34 and 12-XX, I wonder how many know that the big gear, 50x12, is the same as a 46x11. Sat it's the following:-

50/34 and 12-27

you can get the same gearing range, but closer spaced, with 

46/30 and 11-24 

I would argue that, as a compact, the latter would give far greater versatility, in fact I think one of SRAMs new 10 speed Xcountry MTB groups offers 45/29 ish as a compact. Yes, it limits the top end to about 110 gear inches, but I'm yet to be convinced of the average riders need to go beyond that, or even to go that high. At my lowly ability that takes me well beyond 40mph before spinning out and I'm not likely to be pedalling at those speeds anyway.

If you're not bothered by wide ratios then you could get the equivalent of 50/34 with 12-27 by using a 46t upfront and 11-36 on the back, save on front shifting altogether.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Walking? I'm sorry, but I was discussing cycling.
> If you're happy to walk, then I guess you'll be happy with a compact.
> 
> And don't give me that old bull about being able to walk as fast. No one walking and pushing up hills on the Fred Whitton, on up Winnats Pass on the Phil Liggett, or in the Alps on Etapes has ever overtaken me when I've been riding in bottom gear.



Machismo?  

I walked about three hills on LeJOG. The rest, including more than a few 10% + gradients, a compact & 12-25 was perfectly fine *for me*. On the rest, I would rather walk than put myself through agony to crawl up at 2mph.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> Well there's individual perception, which must vary quite a bit otherwise we wouldn't have Fixed/SS and everything in between out to full triple derailleurs. But the marketing must influence those perceptions, as does the machismo bit. I would say that the amount of people carefully selecting appropriate gearing is far outweighed by the amount that go with what's on offer or suggested by the shop.
> 
> If you take a fairly standard compact setup of 50/34 and 12-XX, I wonder how many know that the big gear, 50x12, is the same as a 46x11. Sat it's the following:-
> 
> ...



Yup...and you can just make your brain hurt trying to work all these things out!! The combinations people can achieve through chainring/cassette sizing are bad enough, let alone with hub gears (be they Alfine/Rohloff 7-14 speeds or SRAM DD-type triple replacements) thrown in. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all suits all riders all the time' gear system, nor is there likely to be!

I just take issue with any suggestion that I was led into the choices I made through marketing etc. I like Campag shifting. I considered the reasoning behind 11 speed and it stood up. I knew a compact suited me and the bike just nicely. Athena had excellent reviews, and a friend of mine had 11 speed Record. Hence, I went for Athena. It works for me. Deal with it....


----------



## MacB (22 Jun 2011)

StuAff said:


> Yup...and you can just make your brain hurt trying to work all these things out!! The combinations people can achieve through chainring/cassette sizing are bad enough, let alone with hub gears (be they Alfine/Rohloff 7-14 speeds or SRAM DD-type triple replacements) thrown in. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all suits all riders all the time' gear system, nor is there likely to be!
> 
> I just take issue with any suggestion that I was led into the choices I made through marketing etc. I like Campag shifting. I considered the reasoning behind 11 speed and it stood up. I knew a compact suited me and the bike just nicely. Athena had excellent reviews, and a friend of mine had 11 speed Record. Hence, I went for Athena. It works for me. *Deal with it*....



??? deal with what, you can run whatever you like, no-one cares, what they do care about is the information given out around doubles, compacts, triples, etc and how much the 'industry' caters to customer needs or marketing tries to lead the customer to what is easiest/most profitable for the manufacturers. Or are you going to try to tell me that there is no macho factor around the use of 'proper' road doubles, over compacts and over triples, in that order? I mean, even the term 'granny ring' says a lot.

But as all round cycling advice goes - this works for me, a compact is a good choice, yes I have to get off and walk sometimes but I'm ok with that - it's hardly ringing endorsement territory


----------



## User482 (22 Jun 2011)

I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.




No, it gets *you *up anything. Possibly. It all depends on an individual's capabilities and where you're riding.... Alpe d'Huez? Tourmalet? Ventoux? Compacts proved 'sensible' enough for the friends who've ridden up those. And they seem to cope just nicely in the UK as well. I'd want a triple for those...but I'd probably end up walking anyway.


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> But as all round cycling advice goes - this works for me, a compact is a good choice, yes I have to get off and walk sometimes but I'm ok with that - it's hardly ringing endorsement territory


----------



## StuAff (22 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> Or are you going to try to tell me that there is no macho factor around the use of 'proper' road doubles, over compacts and over triples, in that order? I mean, even the term 'granny ring' says a lot.



Yup, you're right there.


----------



## Glover Fan (22 Jun 2011)

Like helmets, this is a tedious debate. Also like helmets it is all down to personal experience and what you want from cycling. I personally haven't yet found a hill that has demanded more than a 34/26 with my compact configuration. But then I haven't yet tried the rosedale chimney or "The Struggle" on my road bike, when I walked up parts on my triple based MTB.


----------



## yello (22 Jun 2011)

Hopefully, I shall be able to give an opinion based on personal experience shortly when I change triple for compact.

I'm just waiting for the new bottom bracket to arrive.... which will undoubtedly require it's own tool to fit... and then I'll discover that I *will* require a new front mech too.... and then new shifters.... and they whole process will end up costing way too much in terms of time and money... all just to satisfy my own curiosity. After which, I'll undoubtedly refit the triple... and the misses will look at me in confounded bemusement and shake her head. I can be so predictable at times.


----------



## barongreenback (22 Jun 2011)

Personally, I could do with an electric motor as well as a triple


----------



## aberal (22 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.



As would a 34 (compact) with a 32 rear cog, giving you virtually identical ratios. Thus a compact with an equivalent rear cog (using your turn of phrase) will get you up anything.

This response typifies most of the responses from the pro-triple faction here - the reality is (and in answer to the original question) you don't NEED a triple. You may choose to have one, you may prefer the wee micro in-betweeny ratios it gives you - but you don't NEED one. What you NEED is a low gear to suit your capabilities and that can be achieved with a compact, which is why the manufacturers are supplying them. They provide a really low gear for those who want it - a decent spread of ratios, a simpler mechanism in the changing, a better angle for the chain to run through (thus reducing wear) and a admittedly minor weight advantage. There is - _literally _only one disadvantage to a compact over a triple - and that is the size of the drop down (or up) between the large and small chainrings. That can be dealt with easily, frankly. It's not a big issue.


----------



## Hacienda71 (23 Jun 2011)

Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (23 Jun 2011)

Hacienda71 said:


> Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?



if it's a long-arm shimano mech, i'd expect it to take that size of sprocket. you can get those to at least tiagra level…


----------



## aberal (23 Jun 2011)

Hacienda71 said:


> Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?



My tourer mixes an XTR rear mech with Ultegra shifters.


----------



## User482 (23 Jun 2011)

aberal said:


> <br />As would a 34 (compact) with a 32 rear cog, giving you virtually identical ratios. Thus a compact with an equivalent rear cog (using your turn of phrase) will get you up anything.<br /><br />This response typifies most of the responses from the pro-triple faction here - the reality is (and in answer to the original question) you don't NEED a triple. You may choose to have one, you may prefer the wee micro in-betweeny ratios it gives you - but you don't NEED one. What you NEED is a low gear to suit your capabilities and that can be achieved with a compact, which is why the manufacturers are supplying them. They provide a really low gear for those who want it - a decent spread of ratios, a simpler mechanism in the changing, a better angle for the chain to run through (thus reducing wear) and a admittedly minor weight advantage. There is - <i>literally </i>only one disadvantage to a compact over a triple - and that is the size of the drop down (or up) between the large and small chainrings. That can be dealt with easily, frankly. It's not a big issue.<br />



A 32T rear cog won't fit with a standard road rear mech, so your idea is a non-starter.


----------



## fimm (23 Jun 2011)

Flyingfox said:


> Thanks all, having read all the comments it is probably best to go for a triple - maybe I should have said at the start that I am female so don't have the strength that some of the guys on here have.
> 
> I am quite fit (if I go out cycling with my friends I'm usually miles ahead without even trying) and my asthma isn't too bad but I do have a tendency to keel over on hills during the pollen season and very cold weather.
> 
> I shall have a wander around some bike shops and try before I buy.




Another female here. I'm not going to get into the debate, but I would like to just point out that it isn't absolute strength that you need, it is power to weight ratio - these poor men have lug their greater weight up the hills, while you and I are lightweights and don't have so much to shift! (This is why my boyfriend, who is 5' 5" and about 9 stone, is very good up hills, he has the strength but not much weight to shift) The tables are turned on the downhills, when gravity is a help rather than a hinderance... 

For the record, I have a standard chainring on my road bike, with a 9 speed cassette. I have no idea what gear ratios I have, though.


----------



## StuAff (23 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> A 32T rear cog won't fit with a standard road rear mech, so your idea is a non-starter.



Are SRAM Apex and Rival not standard road mechs then? And actually you could use a SRAM XX (MTB) rear derailleur with SRAM road gear, thus enabling you to go down to 34x36 with a compact. 
Idea definitely not a non-starter.


----------



## User482 (23 Jun 2011)

So we're now having to fit MTB rear mechs and cassettes, with attendant cost and jumps between ratios (I certainly wouldn't want to use my 11-32 MTB cassette for road work). Sounds like a totally uncecessary compromise to me...


----------



## Cubist (23 Jun 2011)

User482 said:


> So we're now having to fit MTB rear mechs and cassettes, with attendant cost and jumps between ratios (I certainly wouldn't want to use my 11-32 MTB cassette for road work). Sounds like a totally uncecessary compromise to me...




Exactly. My compact has a 36 32 lowest gear, which can be a pain on steep hills, but my biggest bugbear is that fact that I have to do a double change every time I change chainrings. An 11-32 cassette does indeed give low gerars, but it also gives a bloody lumpy set of ratios. 


As soon as my C2W vouchers get here I'm gonna order me a triple (with a 30-27 bottom gear). Yes it's the same bottom gear as the compact I now have, but at least it'll have smoother ratios.


----------



## MacB (23 Jun 2011)

fimm said:


> Another female here. I'm not going to get into the debate, *but I would like to just point out that it isn't absolute strength that you need, it is power to weight ratio* - these poor men have lug their greater weight up the hills, while you and I are lightweights and don't have so much to shift! (This is why my boyfriend, who is 5' 5" and about 9 stone, is very good up hills, he has the strength but not much weight to shift) The tables are turned on the downhills, when gravity is a help rather than a hinderance...
> 
> For the record, I have a standard chainring on my road bike, with a 9 speed cassette. I have no idea what gear ratios I have, though.



very true for climbing and I'd throw in stamina for keeping up a pace on flat/rolling terrain. I may be physically fairly strong but my power to weight ratio and stamina(currently) put me firmly in the weakling category. I will never have a climbers physique but I can certainly do something about the ratio and the stamina.  

I suspect that if I do achieve the fitness, stamina and weight levels I'd like then the inner ring on my roadbike won't get much use, if at all. Still rather have it there than not though.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jun 2011)

it falls to me to point out that you are all wrong (except, possibly, for User482.......)

It's not too difficult to work out what kind of a bottom gear you're going to need. For some it will be a 30/27, or even a 38/34, and for others it will be a 39/21. It's not too difficult to work out what your top gear needs to be - for most of us it will be something between 53/11 and 50/13 (I think I'm right in saying that Merckx smallest sprocket had thirteen teeth).

Once you've done that all you need to do is to sit down with a pen and paper (and a calculator if, like me, you're a bit past this kind of thing) and see how you can fill the gap between the lowest and the highest in _the smoothest possible way_. If you were of a modern, technological persuasion you could visit the incomparable Sheldon Brown http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/ 

Now - putting a triple 48/38/28 in and a standard 9 speed 12-27 gives you a range of gear inches from 28 to 108 - but it's not all good. There's a 13.3% leap from 48/17 to 48/15. You can reduce the leap by going from 48/17 to 38/13 to 38/12, but that's a bit of a faff. 

Putting a compact 50/34 in with the same 9 speed 12/27 gives you the same 13.3% leap, but it denies you the 'faff' alternative.

However - if you can possibly get away with a lowest ratio of 28/21 (using a 48/38/28 teamed with a 12/21 nine speed cassette), your lowest gear will be 35 gear inches, and the leaps in the middle range will be of the order of seven percent - which makes for a far, far more comfortable ride. If you can do the clever thing and change up and down simultaneously it will be a little like driving one of those variable belt cars.

I ride with people who use all kinds of wide cassette ratios. It looks like terribly hard work.


----------



## albion (23 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> I suspect that if I do achieve the fitness, stamina and weight levels I'd like then the inner ring on my roadbike won't get much use, if at all. Still rather have it there than not though.


When I achieve a level of fitness where the power is 'on tap' I really have to hold back in that my knee soon becomes a goner.

It's also ok having smooth gear changes, but hills themselves certainly are seldom smooth. I'm also sure that it is the lack of a 'granny gear' that both retires many new cyclists and makes roadies a growing minority in some areas of the country.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (23 Jun 2011)

I like the compact set-up, I use a 34/50 12/27 and find it's fine for most of my cycling, I know there's a fair bit of cross over but the overall range is pretty good. MacB's weird set-up's with 46t and 11 30 etc are fine if you're building a bike, as he does every couple of weeks , but most folks will just want to pick up a stock item. If I was riding long distances and carrying loads of stuff, or when I get old(er) and knackered(er) then I'd probably go for a triple but for my everyday mucking about at the moment a compact is fine.


----------



## ColinJ (23 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> I suspect that if I do achieve the fitness, stamina and weight levels I'd like then the inner ring on my roadbike won't get much use, if at all. Still rather have it there than not though.


I managed it about 8 years ago. I spent a whole year not using the inner rings on my road bike or MTB. I was climbing hills in 39/26 then that I use 30/28 on now. 

As you say though - it's nice to have low gears in reserve. I didn't do many long rides that year, and I certainly didn't experience a 20 mph headwind on a killer 20% climb 60 miles into a ride, something that my 30/28 gear has saved me on since then.


----------



## benb (23 Jun 2011)

albion said:


> When I achieve a level of fitness where the power is 'on tap' I really have to hold back in that my knee soon becomes a goner.
> 
> It's also ok having smooth gear changes, but hills themselves certainly are seldom smooth. I'm also sure that it is the lack of a 'granny gear' that both retires many new cyclists and makes roadies a growing minority in some areas of the country.



How do you get a growing minority?


----------



## StuAff (23 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I ride with people who use all kinds of wide cassette ratios. It looks like terribly hard work.



Well, climbing the Beacon with 39x21 looks like terribly hard work to me.....


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Jun 2011)

StuAff said:


> Well, climbing the Beacon with 39x21 looks like terribly hard work to me.....


it is, but if I was on my hybrid, which has 48/38/28 12/13/14//15/16/17/18/19/21 it would be easy work. And I would have gained from a smooth (if slow) ride all the way down from London. 

As for Albion's point - most gear changers will allow you to go down two or three sprockets in one movement. So, in the unlikely event that you get it wrong, or if there is a sudden change in gradient, you could just zip from (say) 38/15 to 38/18. And take this from a man with only one knee......... 

the OP has a triple and 13/25 on the back. A triple (possibly a 50/40/30) with a ten-speed 13/26 would still give him or her a smooth ride, and a bit more top end which is handy for a road bike


----------



## ColinJ (23 Jun 2011)

benb said:


> How do you get a growing minority?


Go from 1% of a population to 2%?


----------



## albion (23 Jun 2011)

benb said:


> How do you get a growing minority?


Obviously it's when you get(to understand) prose. 

I must remember to dot the i's and cross my T's though maybe roadies are growing more defensive these days.


----------



## benb (23 Jun 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Go from 1% of a population to 2%?



Yes, that's true. I don't think that's what albion was implying though.


----------



## benb (23 Jun 2011)

albion said:


> Obviously it's when you get(to understand) prose.
> 
> I must remember to dot the i's and cross my T's though maybe roadies are growing more defensive these days.



Defensive? How dare you, what do you mean


Anyway, I'm not a roadie (well, not _only_ a roadie)


----------



## postman (23 Jun 2011)

Triple.It's nice to know you can use it if you need it.My mate has a Boardman with a compact.We operate around York Otley Knaresborough Bolton Abbey Burnsall so you are getting some idea of the terrain.He recently stated at 67 he wishes he got a triple.


----------



## ColinJ (23 Jun 2011)

benb said:


> Yes, that's true. I don't think that's what albion was implying though.


Ah, yes - _"increasingly rare"_ perhaps?


----------



## MacB (23 Jun 2011)

albion said:


> When I achieve a level of fitness where the power is 'on tap' I really have to hold back in that my knee soon becomes a goner.
> 
> It's also ok having smooth gear changes, but hills themselves certainly are seldom smooth. I'm also sure that it is the lack of a 'granny gear' that both retires many new cyclists and makes roadies a growing minority in some areas of the country.



agreed, easy to hurt the knees but, in my defense, when I talk about maybe not needing to use my inner at some point in the future I am referring to a 24t, my 36t middle ring would probably be thought of as a 'granny' by some heroic individuals


----------



## MacB (23 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> *However - if you can possibly get away with a lowest ratio of 28/21 (using a 48/38/28 teamed with a 12/21 nine speed cassette),* your lowest gear will be 35 gear inches, and the leaps in the middle range will be of the order of seven percent - which makes for a far, far more comfortable ride. If you can do the clever thing and change up and down simultaneously it will be a little like driving one of those variable belt cars.
> 
> I ride with people who use all kinds of wide cassette ratios. It looks like terribly hard work.



far easier to achieve if you take a bigger leap from middle to small, swapping that 28t for a 24t would give you a low of about 30 inches using 24x21 which would be about the same as going 12-27 on a 30t inner ring.


----------



## MacB (23 Jun 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I like the compact set-up, I use a 34/50 12/27 and find it's fine for most of my cycling, I know there's a fair bit of cross over but the overall range is pretty good. MacB's weird set-up's with 46t and 11 30 etc are fine if you're building a bike, as he does every couple of weeks , but most folks will just want to pick up a stock item. If I was riding long distances and carrying loads of stuff, or when I get old(er) and knackered(er) then I'd probably go for a triple but for my everyday mucking about at the moment a compact is fine.



Which is fair enough I just don't get why all the chainsets don't come with options, is the 130 road BCD to do with stiffness or something? For example, if all the chainsets came at 110/74 then you can easily run any of the options around double/compact/triple.


----------



## zigzag (23 Jun 2011)

how to shift front gears properly without losing momentum on a climb? i've noticed when riding with others of similar abilities, if i manage to drop them, it happens on a climb when they shift the front rings. too big of a gap between gears?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (23 Jun 2011)

MacB said:


> Which is fair enough I just don't get why all the chainsets don't come with options, is the 130 road BCD to do with stiffness or something? For example, if all the chainsets came at 110/74 then you can easily run any of the options around double/compact/triple.



I don't know how they arrived at the 'standard' that they have, they could've done with a MacB tinkering in the workshop for a bit first, exploring all the options!


----------



## User16625 (15 Jul 2011)

aberal said:


> I disagree with everything you have just said, other than the negligibility of the weight, which is irrelevant. But each to their own, it boils down to personal choice at the end of the day. IMO triples are unnecessary on the average road bike for the average rider except for full blown touring and perhaps audax.



I disagree on triples being unnecessary. I live in a hilly area and generaly use my middle chain ring. Going uphill that lower ratio sprocket is essential (for me anyway). For high speed downhill blast then I will use the largest chainring. I dont use it that often but im glad its there when im going down a long or steep hill and want to go like hell. A triple gives you a much larger range of ratios which is ideal for the reasons I said. Also like has been said the weight is negligable so I see no reason NOT to go for a triple. Just my opinion.


----------

