Triple vs compact

[jimboalee]

I am the wrong side of 50 have been cycling for a couple of years .I am very glad I opted for the triple.

On not too steep hills I can normally use the 39 tooth middle ring and 25 tooth largest cog combination On steep or long hills or if I am not feeling great I would be walking without the 30 tooth granny ring.

My top gearing is 50 12 and on occasions I think its not quite fast enough but its the bottom gears that are really important to me.

PS I dont understand all of Jimboallees posts but didnt find anything too technical in this one.

Triple Country

There is a big problem on internet forums. Give a 'too technical' response and you get told to shut up. Give a 'dumbed down' response and you get told to shut up.

 

[asterix]

Oi Jim, stop moaning!

 

[zigzag]

I was on a run recently with 2 guys who were both fitter than me. 1 on a double and the other (15 years younger and a good cyclist) on a single!
We had a timed effort up to the top of the campsies north of glasgow.
The guy on the single got there in about 7 mins, the double next in 9 and me last in 10

But this does not mean the single is better. If I had that I would have had to push

single front chainring is my preferred setup. i've covered lots of miles on flat, mountains and hills. never needed to walk (the steepest incline i've tried was around 25%). ok, i spin out at 40mph, but that's enough speed for me. if i raced i'd use 53/39. for average rider triple (or mtb double) is the best choice, but i can't even imagine myself using triple

 

[boydj]

The thing with a compact is that it's often difficult to find a comfortable gear without constantly changing up front, whereas with a triple you can usually do most of your riding on the middle ring. I've noticed when I'm on my triple riding behind someone on a compact they're always changing from one chainwheel to the other, when I only seem to be nipping up and down the cassette.

+1
After riding nothing but triples for several years, including a few hilly sportives, I got a 'compact' this year. I have to say that I much prefer the triples because they suit my riding style better. I like to maintain a fairly constant, relatively fast cadence, which is fairly easy to do on the middle ring of the triple while keeping the chainline fairly straight. With the compact, I find myself changing the front ring much more frequently and running more to the extremes at the back. For next year I'll probably change the 34 for a 36 and put a cassette on with 27 rather than a 25 at the bottom.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

as someone who's club regularly takes in the staffs moorlands, my advice is to go triple. 52/42/30 gives you higher gears for the descents as well as lower gears for the ascents than a 50/34 compact will give, not to mention that the spread of gears mean that changes up or down have less of a jump between them.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Triples here too.

Main reason? The double shifting required on a compact-double. As others have said, the shifting pattern is much simpler on a triple without the big hole cause when swapping chainrings (also followed compact riders constantly swapping cogs). Add in a slightly wider gear range from the off AND if you need to you can always go for the 27T cassette as the 'compact' users advise... and in addition with a Shimano triple you could also swap the 30T chainring for a 28 to give a stump-pulling 28 x 27!

 

[jimboalee]

as someone who's club regularly takes in the staffs moorlands, my advice is to go triple. 52/42/30 gives you higher gears for the descents as well as lower gears for the ascents than a 50/34 compact will give, not to mention that the spread of gears mean that changes up or down have less of a jump between them.

Is that Macclesfield abrev' in your details?

I took a double 52/38, 13 - 23 from Crewe Railway Stn to Moorside Grange Hotel one weekend. Wished I had a triple.
Twas on the weekend of the commonwealth games road race in 2002.

I think that was the last straw because a month later my wife told me to clear off with my bikes and not come back ( except to look after our sons when she went out on the pop ).

I don't think a triple would have saved my marriage, but the advice is there, just the same....

 

[Staffordshire Mamil]

Thanks guys for all your comments/advice.

It just goes to show, one man's meat is another man's poison !! I have to be honest, I am now erring on the side of caution and will probably look for the 3 ring option. The ridgeback horizon tourer could be the chosen one. Easy geometery and plenty of gears for this old timer.
Regards & thanks again

 

[Nozzer]

Is that Macclesfield abrev' in your details?

I took a double 52/38, 13 - 23 from Crewe Railway Stn to Moorside Grange Hotel one weekend. Wished I had a triple.
Twas on the weekend of the commonwealth games road race in 2002.

I think that was the last straw because a month later my wife told me to clear off with my bikes and not come back ( except to look after our sons when she went out on the pop ).

I don't think a triple would have saved my marriage, but the advice is there, just the same....

Brilliant!!

 

[007fair]

single front chainring is my preferred setup. i've covered lots of miles on flat, mountains and hills. never needed to walk (the steepest incline i've tried was around 25%). ok, i spin out at 40mph, but that's enough speed for me. if i raced i'd use 53/39. for average rider triple (or mtb double) is the best choice, but i can't even imagine myself using triple

This guy was on a single speed! ..

 

[Andrew_P]

I have just gone from a 48/38/28 11-32 to 50 x 34T 12-27t and I have not missed the triple, in fact when I replace the front back I will more than likely change to 53/39 - 11/25

 

[jimboalee]

This guy was on a single speed! ..

No. A single chainset with no front mech, but a cassette on the rear with a rear mech.

This set-up is not peculiar. 34 x 11 is a 81", a comfortable touring gear. 34 x 34 is 27", a decent climbing gear.

11 - 34, nine speed MTB cassette.

 

[007fair]

No. A single chainset with no front mech, but a cassette on the rear with a rear mech.

This set-up is not peculiar. 34 x 11 is a 81", a comfortable touring gear. 34 x 34 is 27", a decent climbing gear.

11 - 34, nine speed MTB cassette.

Jim My last response 'This guy was on a single speed!' was clarification to my earlier post ' 007fair, on 10 November 2010 - 11:30:51' where I said 'I was on a run recently with 2 guys who were both fitter than me. 1 on a double and the other (15 years younger and a good cyclist) on a single!' Should have said single speed..

I hope this makes sense!

 

[hondated]

Triple for me with mbk gearing, why walk when you can cycle

 

[Smokin Joe]

I'm 50 and the OP has a few years under his belt more than me, and I'm crediting him with a bit of intelligence.

Where in my post do I lose you Will?

He has a Ridgeback Flight 01, on which he could invert the stem and install bar-ends, or fit drops and it would be a decent bike to tackle Buxton and surrounds.

He's considering a Boardman Comp Road. A bike for serious milage on warm summer days. Pack it with a 30 triple and he's all set to go to Castleton and Speedwell cavern on a day trip. Have a double with a 34 ring and he's lost one gear.


'Compact chainsets' for those who want to look like a road bike and not like a tourer, but need the low gears cus they can't pull a 53/39.

'Triples' for those who want a pleasant day out up the hills and don't give a shoot what others think.

Utter cock.

People who understand variable gears and how to match them to the available power output and riding style use a setup that's suits their personal needs. There is no right or wrong.