compact v triple

[e-rider]

OK I seem to have upset a few people.

Before I run off and hide, I'll make just a few more points.

I did fairly recently own a compact chainset, and I really didn't like it. I now use it as a 39/50T - I simply changed the 34 to a 39.

I didn't like the 34T chainring as I had absolutely no use for it.
This led to me doing ALL my riding in the 50T chainring - not ideal!

I didn't like the gear change from small to large chainring (or vice versa) over 16T - not very smooth.

I also thought that the chainline wasn't good in the gears that I tended to use the most often.

OK, I'm leaving this thread now. I'm going to hide in my shed and polish my 39/50 chainset before people come looking for me!

...and, I don't mind if you all use compacts - as someone said; horses for courses.

 

[buggi]

to keep it simple, a compact is the middle ground between having a double (which is more astheatically (spelling?) pleasing to the eye (aka nice looking!) and having a triple, which gives you easier gears.

a friend of mine did some research and apparently you only lose the one most easiest gear from the triple if you change to a compact.

a lot of people ride compacts now as a compromise between it looking good on the bike and being able to get up that hill without having to get off and walk. That is basically the reason the compact was invented

i started off with a double, had it changed to a compact for my first ride to paris, and have always had a compact since. i have experience no problems with gear changing

 

[Tynan]

I know nothing abut gear ratios but with a 10 speed cassette surely the range even on a single chainring is wide and close enough for routine riding?

 

[davidg]

I think probably so, Tynan.

I commute on a triple and have never used the first ring and barely use the 3rd. It is only an 8 speed. I changed the original cassette from an 11-32 to a 12-25 to give better ratios as that is how I ride.

I use a compact on my road bike with 12-25 on back as well

For me it is not just about the gearing ratios that you can access, but the closeness of the gearing as well, as being in what I think is the right gear is nice and part of having a 10 speed.

There is not doubt there are pros and cons for triple/compact/double compact/single ring, much of it depends on what cassette is being used and what the cyclist wants. Why does everyone think there are so many options?!

tundragumski, dont worry, I am certainly not upset! Just disagree that a compact has no mid range on the flat if you have the right cassette on the back.

Anway, you have found what works for you, so what else is there to know!

 

[rich p]

I notice people on here often say that it depends where you live. I use a triple around here anyway as I probably wouldn't get up some of the hills with my joints but when I take my bike somewhere else like the Peaks or the Alps I certainly need it. I went up 90% of the Tourmalet last year in a 30 x 25 as did most others I saw.

 

[nmcgann]

OK I seem to have upset a few people.

Before I run off and hide, I'll make just a few more points.

I did fairly recently own a compact chainset, and I really didn't like it. I now use it as a 39/50T - I simply changed the 34 to a 39.

I didn't like the 34T chainring as I had absolutely no use for it.
This led to me doing ALL my riding in the 50T chainring - not ideal!

I didn't like the gear change from small to large chainring (or vice versa) over 16T - not very smooth.

I also thought that the chainline wasn't good in the gears that I tended to use the most often.

OK, I'm leaving this thread now. I'm going to hide in my shed and polish my 39/50 chainset before people come looking for me!

...and, I don't mind if you all use compacts - as someone said; horses for courses.

Never get involved in the double/triple/compact holy wars

I live in a flat area and use 38/50 and 40/50 on my main road bikes plus 44/53 on my TT bike. All are appropriate for the riding I do and my level of fitness.

I tried a compact, but it doesn't work for me where I ride. I'd think again if I lived in the lakes/dales, although I got on just fine with a 12-27 cassette when I was last up there.

 

[rsvdaz]

lol..looks like i stirred a honest nest!

I live in devon..it is very very lumpy..ok im a fat barsteward and i regularily use the lowest gear on the granny ring (something i understand you shouldnt do from reading the current gear thread!)

i'm looking to upgrade my bike..the reason why i asked the question is that many come with compacts rather than triples (at my £1k budget)..so i should be looking closer for triple bikes?

 

[zacklaws]

lol..looks like i stirred a honest nest!

That's not stirring up a hornets nest, this is:-

If you want a triple it must mean that your planning on climbing big hills which therefore means rapid descents at very fast speeds so therefore you will need a helmet just in case you crash and bang your head.

Discuss amongst yourselves, I'm off fishing now, back Sunday afternoon.

 

[jay clock]

I have 6 bikes, two of which are road bikes. Over the past 5 years or so I have cycled 30000km or more.

The two road bikes have a triple on my cheaper bike (£400) (30/40/50 I think) with a 12-25 maybe 27 and a compact double on the £3000 bike (39/50 and 12-27). On a previous bike I had a standard double and for me (who spins rather than grinds) it slowed my cadence down on the hills. My feeling is that on a given hill I got up in the same time with either the double or the compact but i was knackered using the the double. I would liken it to asking someone to carry a 10kg bag upstairs 20 times. They might cope ok. Change it to a 12kg bag and it tips the balance too far, and most importantly slows you down as you trudge up the stairs, so that the time taken is the same overall.

Yes, there is a lot of macho bollicks on this subject. I recently cycled the full 180km Lanzarote Ironman bike course in 7.5 hrs on my £400 Trek 1.2 triple. That 30 inch chainring helped enormously. And I climbed the hills the same speed as my clubmates who mostly had compact doubles. One had a standard double, and guess what, he did the same time as us....

 

[e-rider]

a 39/50 isn't really a compact is it?

I also use 39/50 and have been calling that a double.

 

[e-rider]

Ok, so the 39/50 combo. Now being sold 'off-the-shelf' by shimano, and appears to be a common choice and a personal favourite of mine.

With one foot in the 'compact' camp, and the other foot in the 'standard double' camp it clearly needs defining and differentiating from the others.

I'll coin the terms 'semi-compact' if it uses 110bcd; and 'compact-standard' if it uses 130 or 135bcd.

Now we have 5 choices! Change the thread title to: Compact, double, triple, semi-compact or compact-standard?

 

[GrasB]

Jay clock, the only time gearing really effect your climbing speed is when you can't physically turn the gear, besides that it's how you prefer to climb. Personally I like to spin up hills & by spin I mean >100rpm this requires stupidly low gears but I'm perfectly comfortable grinding up a hill at 50rpm


39/50 is definitely a standard. I see compact as anything where the bottom chainring that won't sit on a 130BDC crankset.

 

[HJ]

to keep it simple, a compact is the middle ground between having a double (which is more astheatically (spelling?) pleasing to the eye (aka nice looking!) and having a triple, which gives you easier gears.

If you want it to be aesthetically pleasing, get a single speed