Comments on: Compact or Triple Chain set?

By: T-Bag

T-Bag — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:50:15 +0000

Cycling is an individual sport, so stuff what anyone else says. Go triple all the way. Trust me. One day there might be a time when you have to cycle for your life for as long and as hard as you can. When you are at your limit and you have to get over just one more hill to escape you’ll be glad you have the lower gearing.

By: conrad

conrad — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:26:51 +0000

Hi I use a triple but with half-step instead of widest range possible – thats 45,42 and 28 chainrings and a 12-14-16-18-21-26-32 rear cassette on 700c wheels. Gives a lovely range of gears with a top of 99″ (high enough for me) and bottom gear so low you’re faster walking.
I think it feels best on long rides to have a selection of close ratios around the gear most commonly used. Half-step refers to using the bigger/smaller chainring as a half-way between the rear cog “steps”. Rides like a close ratio racing-bike gears but a bit more useable as you still get the rear cassette big-cog options. Would be easy enough to use eg 48,45 or 51,48 rings up front to lift the ratios to wherever you feel is best. Could lose the little chainring if you want but they don’t weigh much!

By: carl

carl — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:23:30 +0000

I use my Madone in the Alpes and that’s why I selected a triple(+I’ve got bad knees). I’ve got 30/39/52 on front and 13/26 on back. This allows me to climb anything and the teeth difference is most of it just 1 (13 to 19) and 2 (19 to 23). This allows me to climb very smooth. So I do shift a lot and spin. This would not be the case with a Compact and when it gets > 9% then its the old push and pull. If they would make 30/50 compacts I probably think about it.

By: Taj Rossi

Taj Rossi — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:30:45 +0000

Triples always seem to need adjusting! I am not a strong rider but have a carbon compact 50/34 with a SRAM 9 speed 28 cassette on my Ultegra road bike. All woks fine and is super light and can spin up most hills. Shifting is smooth as silk and rarely needs adjusting. For a road bike there seems no comparison

By: mike

mike — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:20:40 +0000

Hey Laura,I’ve been biking seriously for over 30 years now and live in Colorado. When I bought my Madone I had to make this decision as well. I went with the triple and most of the time I never use my granny gears but the times that I do need to climb those steeper slopes I’m very, very happy that they’re there!

By: norseman

norseman — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:53:11 +0000

I owned three double chainring road bike and five triple chainring MT bike. I reluctunt to climb a hilly terrain on my own on what ever bike I ride.But in a group of bikers I always reached to top of the hill. My point is, ride in a group. So it’s nothing to do with double or triple chainring because it differenciency was too little.

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:50:10 +0000

Laura – I bought the Trek Madone 4.7 wsd this year in May, week before my birthday – happy birthday to me.I am in LOVE with this bike. She weighs 18 pounds stock and is the lightest, most responsive thing I have ever ridden and I’ve ridden steel, aluminum (both with carbon forks) and combinations of both. I’ve also ridden other carbon fiber bikes (an aegis) the I didn’t like as well. The Trek soaks up road vibe like a fiend and is so easy to handle I’d swear it was telepathic at times. It’s also very stable on the downhills and doesn’t get squirrely even with a flat (I had both tires go at the same time doing 25-30 on a downhill and didn’t crash – either my bike handling was good, the bike was good, or both, or luck – who knows) Anyway – I love mine to bits and it feels like it was cut out around me. I am a typical woman in that I’m shorter from the waist up than the waist down and I have longish legs – I ride the 54 cm wsd. I go between 25 – 50 miles a ta shot and never a complaint from the bike. I’m going to be putting an 11-26 cassette on the back to help with some of the mountains I’ll be riding, but that is the only change I plan on making to this wonderful ride. If you find a dealer and can take one out for a test ride – DO!!!! I test rode the 5.1 and would have obught it, but the finances were screaming as it was so I didn’t. That said, the 4.7 is a wonderful bike for the buck and I don’t plan on replacing mine any time soon.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:42:06 +0000

Good question, I’ve been pondering the same thing. You don’t say what your current bike has and if you’re happy with its gearing. If so, go for the same. I’m leaning towards a double on my next bike (I use a triple now). A larger frame will weigh more (at least for the same material/model), but that may well be made up for by better fit and a stiffer frame.Thanks to all for the info, especially about Harris’ custom cassettes!

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:40:25 +0000

When I went to a compact my setup was already a double on the Paramount.The 110bcd gave me a multitude of chainrings to choose from.(while there are inexpensive 110 chainrings the ones which are ramped and pinned will cost but are worth it if you want to do fast shifts on the chainrings)I got a ramped and pinned 46 tooth and 48 tooth to go along with the 50/34 tooth.I’ve used the 46/34 setup for 4 years now and love it. (It gets me over 20mph but allows me to use the larger chainring for all but hill climbs)and that setup might be a good one for a smaller person or-like myself-one over 60.

By: Steve Ottawa ON

Steve Ottawa ON — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:39:59 +0000

Laura…The GIANT TCR that I bought used this Spring came with a 53/39 + 11/23. Low Gear 44.6 Gear Inches…excruciating for me -a 58 y/o rec rider who does about 5000 km over a 6 month season. Switched to a compact 50/34 + 12/27. Low Gear 33.1 Gear Inches. Much much better but was running out of gas on long (3 km +) climbs. Have now tried a 12/30 on the back (without need for changing derailleur) and that gives 29.8 Gear Inches. That’s what I will stick with because it allows me to spin up just about any climb I will (choose) to face. This 12/30 “Century Special” is one of the most popular cassettes sold by the Sheldon Brown/Harris Cyclery people so that says loads (I am not connected with them) Best of luck.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:39:17 +0000

I have a 1.5 Trek bicycle size 58. It has pretty much, basic parts on it. And i was wondering, what could you recomend.To upgrade it wheels included. Thank you!

By: Ryan B

Ryan B — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:33:12 +0000

Hi laura I would go with a double compact unless you really go all out for speed you dont need a big ring,even my mtb’s dont have triples,one of my road bikes that I converted into a hybrid(straight bars,fatter tyres) runs a single 44T front and 7speed on the back(13T/34T mega range)and handles the hills and is also quik on the flats,but I would say a double compact with a close ratio rear cassette would be the best for riding and long life on your chain.

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:32:44 +0000

Hi.Just a note from someone who has ridden both and liked themI live on a mountain and have ridden triples for years. I was pleasantly surprised by buying a compact trek 4.7 wsd and having it work out extremely well – I had pretty good legs before, but boy, did that compact really make my legs stronger and it has made me a better rider, I think.I do get out a triple if I am going to be doing long distance (over 50) in a day and it is going to be exceptionally hilly. My advice – tyake it out, try both, see what works for you. Take in to account how much you ride and where, and see how it goes. If you are in doubt at all about whether or not you can handle hills with only two chain rings, get the triple. You will probably be happier with it in that situation. Just for reference, I am 38, ride 2002-3500 miles a year, and have ahd surgery on both knees.

By: Cory Fates

Cory Fates — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:32:03 +0000

Laura,I forgot to provide some “gear inch” information.My old setup was 36 tooth smallest chain with 29 tooth largest cog. My trip setup is 30 tooth smallest chain ring with 27 tooth largest cog. Here are some comparisons, that help explain why I chose a triple:Old set up:36 teeth + 29 teeth = 33.2 gear inchesCompact crank set up:34 teeth + 27 teeth = 33.7 gear inchesTriple crank set up:30 teeth + 27 teeth = 29.7 gear inchesFrom that, you can see my old set up was comparable to a compact crank; while 29.7 gear inches does not see like a huge difference, I really can ride up hills more easily than with the old set up.Also, the top gear comparison between the compact and new triple give this:Compact:50 teeth + 12 teeth = 111.5 gear inchesTriple:52 teeth + 12 teeth = 116.0 gear inchesI don’t see that as a really significant difference, especially since I am rarely bicycling that 52+12 combination, unless I’m going down a big hill.Good luck!

By: Cory Fates

Cory Fates — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:31:32 +0000

Laura,You don’t say how old you are, how often you ride or where you live. These factors make a difference. In my 20s and 30s, I used to bike 2000-4000 miles a year. Last year I started some serious bicycling after not having done so since 1989; I logged 1250 miles and did my first Century+ since 1989. I was so enthralled with bicycling again that I bought a new bike for the first time in 21 years. I faced the same dilemma that you did. I am in my 50s, live in hilly Seattle, will bike around 2000 miles this year. My old bike had a Campy triple on it with the smallest chain ring being 36 teeth and the biggest cog being 29 teeth. I struggled up hills. My new triple has 30 teeth on the smallest chain ring and 27 on the largest cog and I eat up hills almost like I did 20 years ago. I’m glad that I opted for the triple. The weight difference is only a couple of ounces between the compact and triple cranksets, including bottom bracket.I note, however, that I started a weight training program in January 2008, which has made me significantly stronger, and makes me think that I could have opted for the compact crankset. However, I have had surgery on one knee, and by having the triple crank, I am far less likely to reinjure my knees while climbing hills, than I would be with the compact set. If you are a low mile, occasional rider, the triple is a better bet.Bottom line: try both, and make sure you hit some good hills! If you’re a strong rider, have good knees, and not a lot of hills, the compact would be great. But, if you live in a really hilly area and have bad knees, you’ll probably be happier with the triple.

By: Andrew H.

Andrew H. — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:30:45 +0000

Laura: Good input from others as posted on this site, but you be the judge. Go with what you feel works best for you, your area and your favorite ride. Here in the mounatins of British Columbia (Canada) I don’t anyone who rides a road bike with a Triple, those who I ride with use the compact 34/50. Good luck and happy riding.

By: rikki corcoran

rikki corcoran — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:30:24 +0000

G’day Laura, I have been using the compact chain set racing this year and find it works well,good for climbing the smaller combinations with the 34-50 my legs weren’t as tired as when I used 44-54 on the same hills.So I would recommend compacts.

By: Clinton Slayton

Clinton Slayton — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:29:49 +0000

I have tried both, and am now back to riding compact double, after abt 5000 miles on my triple(s). Other issues with triple are the chain length, axle length and cage length. If you need “grannies” on the back (bigger than 25 teeth), then everything has to be bigger, and it looks like long cage derailers are going to go the way of the dodo. But I think there is still a need for the triple if you ride uphill with loads on a regular basis.

By: Mike Kilpatrick

Mike Kilpatrick — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:29:15 +0000

Dont agree with your recommendation of a Triple,but you are probably a stronger cyclist than myself and a Compact could be fine for you.I on the other hand need all the assistance i can get trying to ascend any sort of hill(28T Cassette/30T Bottom Ring).Regarding chain wear on the Triple set, i am always keeping a good eye on chain angle when cycling and usually keep in the middle of the cassette and shift between chainrings,Still can’t manage Wrynose or Hard Knott with this set up but i am a bit of a lardy.RegardsMike

By: Johnny King

Johnny King — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:28:24 +0000

Laura, I’ve debated the same question for years now and have still stuck with my trusty trible. I’m 52 years old and am out to enjoy my cycling not kill myself. I really don’t feel I’m strong enough for a compact. I’ve modified my treble to 50, 39, 30 with 11-26 back block and checked the ratios. Not much overlapping and can climb in relitive comfort. The only difficulty I have is I’ve found is it is a little difficult to keep the trible true (i.e. you need a little patience in adjusting the gears to change smoothly)but if you are not racing I’d stick with the trible. Johnny

By: Steve Ottawa ON

Steve Ottawa ON — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:27:56 +0000

I had a triple on my previous bike and now ride a Giant TCR with a 50/34 Compact and a 12/27. I will be riding in the Alps next year and plan to install either a 12/30 or a 12/32 cassette (if I opt for latter I will have to change the rear derailleur as well). I prefer swapping the cassettes and staying with a compact then going back to a triple. My very personal preference. I am 58.

By: JOHN VARGAS

JOHN VARGAS — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:27:08 +0000

mi bicicleta es una madone 5.2 con triple y me siento muy bien, sobre todo en las subidas fuertes, con un triple ninguna cuesta te va ha hacer bajar de la bicicleta. Por lo unico que penaliza el triple es por un poco mas de peso

By: Jeff H.

Jeff H. — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:26:42 +0000

I worked on a cruise ship in Hawaii for three months, about ten years ago. I rode my compact chain set 12 speed Team Fuji every day. Basically, most everything away from the ship is uphill! So, I did a lot of long hill climbs. I looked into changing the bike to the triple, but was advised against it. So, I just kept at it with the compact setup. I always got where I needed to go, although I would take rests, maybe even sometimes walking the bike while resting from a particularly steep section of road. Boy did my legs get strong! The good part about riding over there was: most everything back to the ship was downhill!One of my favorite rides in Honolulu: Going up Tantalus (Argh!) and then down Round Top (Whee!).

By: John Wood

John Wood — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:26:00 +0000

I have road bikes set up with both compact (34-50) and triple (30-42-52) cranks. In Northern VA the compact was adequate, but here in Albuquerque, NM, you really need a triple to handle the mountains.I’m disappointed that Campy recently seems to be de-emphasizing triples, especially with how well the “racing triples” provided flexibility with a 29/13 cassette. You would think their new 11 spd group would even provide a bigger spread like 30/13 or 29/11 – not so, it’s finer, obviously their reluctance to provide longer cage deraileurs with the new groupos. Give us long climbing bigger riders more capability!!All best -JOhn-

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:25:32 +0000

Dear Laura,If you are strong for climbing, i would recommed compacts. My friend had compacts and just change for a triple, she doesn’t like it.