Triple or Compact

Jemm

Hi all,

I'm buying a ladies road bike at the moment and all the bike shops are telling me the compact double chain rings are the same/better than triple? Anyone have any experience/preference/info on this?

25sean

compact.. triples are ugly

darkvalley

If you are just starting out cycling and with a very low level of fitness then the triple is what you need. It is amazingly difficult to get up hills at the start. I was glad I started with a triple.
However as you get more use to cycling you will also be amazed, after a couple of months, at how much you come on and will find that the compact is better. A lot of the task of getting up hills is in the head!
As a general rule I would go with the compact and get either a 28 or 30 cog on the cassette, particularly if it is a road bike.

dragratchet

triples add weight to the bike and require (in my experience) more maintenance to keep them working well. I started with a triple on my bike and definitely welcomed the option on steep climbs, the drawback was that i wasn't really developing a lot of leg strength spinning up in a handy gear. having moved to a compact i find my strength improving and overall climbing ability too. if you're light enough and don't live in the french alps go with the compact double

munsterleinster

Compact can have the same range as a triple.
So the lowest gear will be the same and the highest the same between both.

The difference you'll find is the step when you change gears. Compacts will have bigger steps.
I like having the smaller steps between gear changes so I run a triple. Not much in it though
Triples seem to be very unfashionable at the moment..so I'm not one of the cool kids.;)

Pinch Flat

I have two bikes - on with a triple and a compact. I would go compact - same gear range as a triple if configured correctly. I would be looking for a 34T up front and a minimum of a 27T at the rear if starting off.

bazermc

So is a compact a double? Or is an actual double different in terms of the teeth?

Jemm

Thanks for the info! It's 50/34t. Just want to make the hills as easy as possible for myself

Raam

bazermc wrote: »

So is a compact a double? Or is an actual double different in terms of the teeth?

It is a double with smaller chainrings up front.

Pinch Flat

Jemm wrote: »

Thanks for the info! It's 50/34t. Just want to make the hills as easy as possible for myself

34t up front is perfect. Look at having 27 or 28t on the back and you'll be laughing (sort of!)

MB Lacey

Jemm wrote: »

Thanks for the info! It's 50/34t. Just want to make the hills as easy as possible for myself

Compact all the way.
Triples are cumbersome.

I have a compact with a 12-30 cassettee and any hill is a breeze.
11-28 would do you too.

There was an especially hilly day on the Women's tour of Britain a few weeks ago, the commentators mentioned that all the women would have chosen their compact set ups for the hills.

bazermc

Raam wrote: »

It is a double with smaller chainrings up front.

Ah ok get ya. Cheers.

fat bloke

I think the new 11 speed compact set up spells the end of triples on all road bikes.

Triple only makes sense now on touring setups for long distance luggage carrying etc.

Sean Farrell

Raam wrote: »

It is a double with smaller chainrings up front.

I'm confused a bit here. So a compact is a chainring but smaller...does that mean it has less teeth than a normal chainring or is the scaled smaller...ooops just realised if it would be scaled smaller the chain would be affected abd would'nt run properly..back to my engineering/ mechanics evening classes I go! So whats the normal ratio for athe average road racing bike for the flat lets say? and what would be the number of teeth for the averge compact be then ?

dermabrasion

Sean Farrell wrote: »

I'm confused a bit here. So a compact is a chainring but smaller...does that mean it has less teeth than a normal chainring or is the scaled smaller...ooops just realised if it would be scaled smaller the chain would be affected abd would'nt run properly..back to my engineering/ mechanics evening classes I go! So whats the normal ratio for athe average road racing bike for the flat lets say? and what would be the number of teeth for the averge compact be then ?

A standard (i.e. flat racing set up) is a double chainring 53/39
A Compact (for hills) is a double t50/34
The cassette also adds to this. Old school cassettes are 11/23 or 11/25. This would not be good for a beginner. A 11/28 cassette with a Compact would be great. If you really don't like hills, then a compact with an 11/32 would give you the exact range of a Triple. You need a long rear derailleur (a.k.a; long cage) to accommodate a big cassette like a 32T. This set up is becoming more available and is what the pros use on horrific climbs like the Stelvio.
if you want to see the speeds and equivalency of the various options, you can find it here
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

bazermc

One more question, does anybody actual run a standard double, it would seem triples or compacts are whats available?

I presume the pros go with a double? except on a major/steep mountain stages i.e. Zoncolan in the Giro there last weekend?

My bike I think is only available as triple or compact, it is a specialized roubaix.

Raam

bazermc wrote: »

One more question, does anybody actual run a standard double, it would seem triples or compacts are whats available?

I do.

MB Lacey

bazermc wrote: »

One more question, does anybody actual run a standard double.

My commuter is a standard double.

It seems to have been the default set up on older bikes, the compact set up is relatively new.

dragratchet

bazermc wrote: »

One more question, does anybody actual run a standard double, it would seem triples or compacts are whats available?

I presume the pros go with a double? except on a major/steep mountain stages i.e. Zoncolan in the Giro there last weekend?

My bike I think is only available as triple or compact, it is a specialized roubaix.

buddy of mine runs a standard double, he's a lot lighter than me though, with a compact you're missing out on that top end speed when you're descending or blasting along the flat. always wish i had a bigger gear on the descents.

dermabrasion

I run a standard double. I change out the rear cassette depending what I'm doing. I have a long-cage rear derailleur for 3 cassettes, 11/26, 11/28 and 11/32. I am not light, and hardly ever need the 11/32 in Ireland. It is a saviour on the long European climbs.

eeeee

I'm on a double. I love hammering it out down descents and on the flats so I like having higher gears. I suffer up hills so I can blast/recover down I am also not a big spinner really so it suits me. I suppose it's down to personal cycling style. That said I am pure useless up hills....i wonder why,,, :pac

Harrybelafonte

A compact with an 11-25 cassette has a bigger top gear ratio than a 53x12 so generalisations about a compact alone don't swing it. The cassette details are important too.

Zen0

dragratchet wrote: »

always wish i had a bigger gear on the descents.

Always wish I had bigger balls on the descents

BoardsMember

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

A compact with an 11-25 cassette has a bigger top gear ratio than a 53x12 so generalisations about a compact alone don't swing it. The cassette details are important too.

Would someone mind explaining this please? Sorry, total newbie here.

I understand the cassette is the block on the back wheel, and that the "11-25" means there would be 11 teeth on the smallest gear, with 25 on the biggest.

A bit lost with 53x12...does that mean 53 teeth on the outer chainset, and 12 on the back cassette?

This gets quite confusing. So far away from "how many gears have you got" when I was a lad...

Lumen

BoardsMember wrote: »

A bit lost with 53x12...does that mean 53 teeth on the outer chainset, and 12 on the back cassette?

Yes.

The point is that now we have lots of sprockets on our cassettes (up to 11, depending on groupset), it's possible to have a cassette where the smallest sprocket has 11 teeth, rather than 12 or 13 as in the past, without making the jumps between sprockets too large.

If you have an 11 sprocket on the back, that extra tooth more than compensates for the loss of three teeth on the largest chainring you get with a compact vs standard double.

Harrybelafonte

BoardsMember wrote: »

Would someone mind explaining this please? Sorry, total newbie here.

I understand the cassette is the block on the back wheel, and that the "11-25" means there would be 11 teeth on the smallest gear, with 25 on the biggest.

A bit lost with 53x12...does that mean 53 teeth on the outer chainset, and 12 on the back cassette?

This gets quite confusing. So far away from "how many gears have you got" when I was a lad...

My fault. I referee to two different modes of measurement. What I should have said was that as a top gear, 50x11 (as in smallest cog at back) is a bigger gear, in terms of gear inches than 53x12. Marginally bigger I should add. So if you have a compact with 11-25 your biggest gear is bigger than a double with a 12-25, only the biggest gear mind. One of the benefits of the double is better spacing between the gears though.

Am, as always, open to correction in this regard.

Check out Sheldon's site re gearing.

BoardsMember

Thanks for the replies. I'm getting closer to fully understanding it...slowly but surely.

Is it possible to infer from the numbers how many gears there are? I know it is probably a really stupid question, and largely irrelevant, though the more sprockets presumably the less the difference between each gear. I understand a double will have 2x the number of sprockets on the cassette, but can you tell from the numbers, e.g. an 11-25, how many sprockets there would be on the cassette?

Zen0

BoardsMember wrote: »

can you tell from the numbers, e.g. an 11-25, how many sprockets there would be on the cassette?

No, you can't. Just to confuse things even more, be aware that the gear ratios available on each of the front chainrings will overlap with those available on other chainrings. Another reason why a triple makes less sense these days; it doesn't offer much, possibly bar a single lower gear, and with compact setups now going to 30 or even 32 on the back that's no longer necessarily the case.

Sheldon's gear ratio page, linked above, is your friend in understanding all of this. Put in a few different sets of numbers and you can begin to understand the effects of different size cassette and chaining combinations.

CramCycle

Triples are not more work to maintain.

It will give you a wider range unless you have really big jumps in the compact, ie you can speed downhills and increase your average speed as you get fitter with a triple. Changes will be smoother.

They also are not ugly from the side they are the same only they look bigger so you look more awesome.

Raam

CramCycle wrote: »

Triples are not more work to maintain.

It will give you a wider range unless you have really big jumps in the compact, ie you can speed downhills and increase your average speed as you get fitter with a triple. Changes will be smoother.

They also are not ugly from the side they are the same only they look bigger so you look more awesome.

No, they are ugly and look bad and you should feel bad.

BoardsMember

Classic last two comments....ike Stepbrothers the movie!!

Mercian Pro

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Check out Sheldon's site re gearing.

For some of the less initiated, Sheldon Brown was the ultimate bike guru and his website sheldonbrown.com is still a treasure trove of bike related details. You can even work out the exact ratio of each of your chainring/sprocket combinations and print them out on a little card to stick on your stem. Not very cool though as you should really memorise them;)

Wishbone Ash

dermabrasion wrote: »

... You need a long rear derailleur (a.k.a; long cage) to accommodate a big cassette like a 32T. This set up is becoming more available and is what the pros use on horrific climbs like the Stelvio...

I can't imagine an average club cyclist needing a 32 on the Stelvio nevermind a pro. It's long drag but not particularly steep - averaging 7/8%. There's much worst out there such as the Angliru or the already mentioned Zoncolan.

Sean Farrell

I dont know if I'm on the right thread here...maybe it should be on "the tell us about ur ride today".
I was in Cape Clear Island of the West Cork coastline this weekend. I brought my bike, which on looking at the gear ratios has as the smallest gear... a 22 tooth small chainring and 35 tooth cog on the cassette at the back. That would litterly climb walls.
However those u who have been on the Island might know of the road/hill that goes up to the Heritage centre from the North Harbour. I used the smallest gear possible an had difficulty stopping the front wheel and handlebars pulling up. I could turn the gear no problem but I could'nt stop the bike fron doing a "wheelie".! Which makes me ask the question ...how does someone measure the gradient of a climb when on the road..is it possible to do?

Wishbone Ash

Sean Farrell wrote: »

I used the smallest gear possible an had difficulty stopping the front wheel and handlebars pulling up. I could turn the gear no problem..

If you could turn the gear without a problem you could have selected a higher gear. A 22 turning a 35 is exceptionally low - presumably a MTB? If you get out of the saddle it helps keep the front end down but there is a danger of the back wheel slipping. I've only experience of road bikes though and it may differ on a MTB.

Sean Farrell wrote:

...Which makes me ask the question ...how does someone measure the gradient of a climb when on the road..is it possible to do?

Mathematics isn't my strong point but the average gradient can be worked out if you know the altitude, slope distance, flat distance travelled.

Lumen

Sean Farrell wrote: »

I used the smallest gear possible an had difficulty stopping the front wheel and handlebars pulling up. I could turn the gear no problem but I could'nt stop the bike fron doing a "wheelie".!

You just need to shift your weight forward a bit, but not so much as to start skidding the rear, and pedal nice and smoothly.

As the road angle goes up the effective wheelbase shortens so weight shifts have more effect.

Sean Farrell

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If you could turn the gear without a problem you could have selected a higher gear. A 22 turning a 35 is exceptionally low - presumably a MTB? If you get out of the saddle it helps keep the front end down but there is a danger of the back wheel slipping. I've only experience of road bikes though and it may differ on a MTB.

Its not exactly a MTB. Its a hybrid, a Lapiere Apache.


Mathematics isn't my strong point but the average gradient can be worked out if you know the altitude, slope distance, flat distance travelled.

that would be old Pythagoras theorom i guess... if slope is C, and altitude is A and flat distance travelled is B then
C squared = A squared + B squared...then the angle between B and C is the gradient?

Is that how its done or do i need to go back to school?

Pinch Flat

Sean Farrell wrote: »

that would be old Pythagoras theorom i guess... if slope is C, and altitude is A and flat distance travelled is B then
C squared = A squared + B squared...then the angle between B and C is the gradient?

Is that how its done or do i need to go back to school?

This article I found useful

http://theclimbingcyclist.com/gradients-and-cycling-an-introduction/

Lumen

Sean Farrell wrote: »

that would be old Pythagoras theorom i guess... if slope is C, and altitude is A and flat distance travelled is B then
C squared = A squared + B squared...then the angle between B and C is the gradient?

Is that how its done or do i need to go back to school?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(slope)

Sean Farrell

Thats a good article Pinch Flat thanks. Thanks for the link Lumen..lunchtime is going to be a bit of maths class for me