Laura is thinking of getting a new bike and is considering buying a bike with either a triple or a compact chain set. We run through the pros and cons of both systems and say which one we prefer
Question:
I have been riding for about 2 years on a Giant OCR 1. I've been told it's too small for me and would like to upgrade and get a frame that fits better. My question is whether I should get a triple or a compact? I'm new to this forum, so sorry if you've covered this in the past.
Hi Laura,
Don't worry, we probably have looked at this tricky question before, but its well worth looking at again because so many other people are going through the same "will I wont I?" question when it comes to the compact or triple question.
With a triple chain set you will have the gears to do just about anything, ride up the side of a house probably and with a
cassette with a small enough sprocket a triple will be OK for coming back down again.
The problem with triple chain sets are that many of the gears have the same ratios, there are many gears that you don't need or use with a triple and there is extra weight involved.
You have an extra chain wheel and the bolts to hold them to the cranks and the axle is wider so there is more metal. Your chain also wears out quicker as it has to flex more to go across the three chain wheels and from one side to the other on the cassette. With a triple chain set you need a long arm rear derailleur and a different front derailleur that can handle a longer drop.
With a compact chain set there is less duplications of gears than with a triple, a compact is slightly lighter than a normal double as there is less of it and it is better for your chain as it doesn't have to twist so much as with the width of a triple.
You lose a little of the high gears, which you probably don't use and it can give you more lower gears depending on your cassette. The rear derailleur is the same as with a normal double, but with some compacts you need a special front derailleur.
If you are buying a complete bike then the different derailleur's are not a problem, this is only if you were up-grading your existing bike. Personally I prefer the compact option as it is simple and works very well and the gears are well grouped with out the duplications or big jumps between them. Your next problem is which bike to get?
How to submit your Cycling Question?
Proven training methods, research, data, and analysis of the
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.
Regards
Mike
But I think there is still a need for the triple if you ride uphill with loads on a regular basis.
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.
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.
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-
One of my favorite rides in Honolulu: Going up Tantalus (Argh!) and then down Round Top (Whee!).
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.
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.
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 inches
Compact crank set up:
34 teeth + 27 teeth = 33.7 gear inches
Triple crank set up:
30 teeth + 27 teeth = 29.7 gear inches
From 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 inches
Triple:
52 teeth + 12 teeth = 116.0 gear inches
I 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!
Just a note from someone who has ridden both and liked them
I 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.
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.
Thanks to all for the info, especially about Harris' custom cassettes!
Laura
United States of America
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.
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!