Objective comparison of compact versus triple?

[Chance]

Given that all cyclists do not have the same abilities and therefore don’t benefit from the same equipment equally, it would be nice to compare compact versus triple drivetrains as objectively as possible to help make an individual choice.

So far my list of significant differences between the two choices includes the following:

1) Cost: Triples usually cost a little more, in the order of $50 to $100 or so. Sometimes we can get them for same price.
2) Weight: Compact generally weighs less. Maybe in the order of 100 to 150 grams or so when comparing similar groups.
3) Electronic: To my knowledge triples are not available with electronic shifting. Ultegra and DA are double/compact only.
4) Stigma: Triples carry a slightly greater stigma for being for “beginners”, “weak”, and or “old” riders compared to compact.
5) Shifting: Compacts shift cleaner compared to granny-middle ring shifts. This is partly offset by fewer front shifts.
6) Q factor: Triples generally have a wider Q factor.
7) Ratios: Based on having more total gears, triples generally offer greater total range or closer gear spacing for equal range.

What else is missing? What other factors should a prospective buyer consider when comparing these two options?

[MattTuck]

I ride a triple, but my next bike will be a compact double. Pretty close to the same low gear, and I don't care that much about gear spacing.

One big consideration for me in going with the double (despite having liked my triple a lot) is that the triple is more or less a dying group for road biking, and I was slightly concerned about parts and it being obsolete at some point.

Not sure if this should even be a consideration given the other much more important factors you mentioned, but it was something I thought about.

This area has a lot of hills, and I really need the lower gears.

Some people will say, "you don't need low gears, you should be able to ride up anything with a regular range of gears" but they aren't carrying 30 extra pounds, and those low gears help me.

[Chance]

.........
One big consideration for me in going with the double (despite having liked my triple a lot) is that the triple is more or less a dying group for road biking, and I was slightly concerned about parts and it being obsolete at some point.

Not sure if this should even be a consideration given the other much more important factors you mentioned, but it was something I thought about.
..............

Concern over possible obsolescence of parts seems objective. Although some have stated recently that both Campy and Shimano are still making or are introducing new triple groups. Not sure how serious a concern that should be for the life expectancy of a new group, but a concern nonetheless.

[54ny77]

if you need the gearing that's not possible with a compact, get a triple drivetrain and don't look back. it's really that simple.

all those other things you're thinking about is background noise. seriously.

compacts are terrific, i've fully embraced 'em and am slowly converting all my road bikes to compacts. 11-28 cassettes w/a 34 small ring allows me to tackle pretty much anything. on one bike (a tandem) i have a triple, because as big as my ego is, there's no way in hell it will power us up a hill.... ;)

[Tony T]

.

Old, but worth a read: http://bikehugger.com/post/view/the-rise-of-the-compact-crank

[559Rando]

Both are fine. If you look, both have long histories (compact doubles are not new). Both have their place.

In general, you might consider how many gears you need, how high you need, how low you need and how close you want each ratio to be.

In the good old days of 5s freewheels, you could get 15 unique ratios with a triple. You can no get a similar range (with similar gaps) in a 2x8 set up. 2x10 or 2x11 can give you smaller gaps and/or a wider range.

You raise other good flags such as integration with electronic shifting (not a factor for most riders), wider Q factors (narrow is nice, but not all want or need the narrowest Q).

Jan's post about choosing gearing is worth a second look.

[chismog]

I've done both quite a bit. I now prefer compacts.

One thing you do not mention is the ease of setup. In my experience, it's a lot harder to get the front shifting dialed in with a triple. This has to do with cable tension, which is how trim is adjusted for a triple front. It's just a finicky setup, and unless you get it just right you will be constantly trimming.

Compacts are much more simple and tolerant of a less than perfect setup. I think they shift better simply due to a less complex system.

The range of the triple vs compact gearing is not going to vary much for a typical road setup. The triple might get you one lower gear, with a whole lot more gears in between. This is great if you're touring or living in one particular ring most of the time. But if you're just looking for a lower gear and don't need all that granularity within your range, the compact is better imho.

Especially with the advent of 10-11s gears, and 11-28 cassettes... I just don't think most road bikes need anything but a compact, with a cassette suited for whatever purpose you have.

Hope this helps.

[fiamme red]

A triple allows me to use a middle chainring like a 42t that suits my needs for rolling terrain. A 50t ring is too large and a 36t is too small, unless I'm cross-chaining a lot of the time.

When I'm riding in a very hilly area, I prefer the shifting of a triple. Say I'm in my 42x21 climbing a moderate hill. I round the corner and find myself confronted with a 15% wall. With an easy flick on the downtube shifter, I'm in the 30x21. The equivalent shift on a compact would be shifting down several cogs, not as easy.

[Rada]

I use a compact crank on most of my bikes, but still prefer a triple on my touring rig. Being able to drop down to a 24/36 going up a steep hill fully loaded can be a saving grace. Bar end shifters in friction mode is pretty easy to set up and use for triple cranks.

[eddief]

i remember so much more front shifting to find a suitable ratio. not a big deal, but i am on triples now and middle to big is a snap and that is where i live most of the time. small ring is the granny in reserve and only need to be there when the huffing and puffing starts. nothing quite like a bail out gear after 75 miles and 5K feet of climbing.

[mistermo]

I have a Campy 50-40-30 triple on a bike. I really like it. ~75% of the time, the 40 ring is where I'm shifting. Front derailleur shifts occur far less frequently on the triple. This isn't an "objective" assessment though.

What is objective is that while the crankset may weigh a fraction more than a compact. It also allows me to run a smaller cassette, saving weight.

Also, with a compact, I found I was often cross chained, not so with a triple.

New style Campy shifters don't like triples. An IRD Alpina front derailleur fixed that. If you plan to go electronic or use SRAM, then using a triple is a moot issue.

[Chance]

..........
One thing you do not mention is the ease of setup. In my experience, it's a lot harder to get the front shifting dialed in with a triple. This has to do with cable tension, which is how trim is adjusted for a triple front. It's just a finicky setup, and unless you get it just right you will be constantly trimming.

Compacts are much more simple and tolerant of a less than perfect setup. I think they shift better simply due to a less complex system.
............

Thanks. Good point. Agree fully. At least on my older triple adjustment is more important to keep from dropping the chain on the inside of granny ring. It works fine 99 percent of the time but overall it isn't as reliable as doubles. Don't know if newest triples are easier to set up or have more reliable shifting.


8) Possible obsolescence of parts.
9) More difficult setup.

[Chance]

.

Old, but worth a read: http://bikehugger.com/post/view/the-rise-of-the-compact-crank

Recall that article, thanks. Funny though that after almost 5 years triples are not quite dead yet. Maybe the pendulum may even swing back a little.;)

[svelocity]

I have both:

Compact - I have this on my roadie and I use it for road riding, commuting, etc and the compact is great. I have a 50/36 up front and a 12-30 (Century Special from Harris Cyclery (http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/k7.html)) in the rear. This pretty much covers everything I've thrown at it and I live where there's some pretty decent climbs.

Velo-Orange has 46/30 crankset that could be used for more heavy-ish touring or rando type stuff or anytime you would like a smaller front chain ring yet all the advantages of compact.

Triple - I have a triple on my heavy tourer. It's a 50/40/30 but I'm thinking I'd like to knock it down to a 48/36/24. In any case it's covered all the bases of a touring bike but there has been some occasions where I'd like that 24t chain ring.

The only reason I'd put a triple on a "road" bike is if it was the only bike I had and I needed it to do everything.

[Pete Mckeon]

Triple or Compact are both good. Pick the one that covers the gearing you need for riding! Pete

[witcombusa]

I love a half-step plus granny setup on a bike with a triple. Sadly not easy to do anymore with current cassettes. 48-44-24 with a 14-34 6 speed. Loaded touring at it's best.

[Bradford]

I think it comes down to stigma. The other things you said seem true enough, but the cool factor (or uncool, in the case of a triple) seems to be the big deal. Luckily for me, I've never been cool and stopped caring about what other people think when I was in high school.

I actually prefer a wider Q. I fell into the trap of thinking lower Qs are better until I realized how much more comfortable I was on my tandem and touring bike than on my (at the time) road bike with a double.

Concerning set up...I'm barely adequate as a mechanic and I have three triples that work very well. If I can do it, it can't really be that hard.

I like a triple for the same reason fiamme red pointed out, 50 is too big and 36 is too small for me. I live in the middle ring and pop up or down when I need to go big or small. It is a style of riding that suits me much more than the gearing on a compact.

[Don49]

Another consideration that I don't see mentioned is the ease of converting a double to a compact.

I wanted to try a compact after doing a century with 11k+ climbing and wanting lower gearing at some points. All it took to convert to compact was installing the compact crankset, lowering the FD a few mm, shortening the chain, and checking the shifting. Didn't even need to change the BB. Going back to a standard double would be equally easy if I change my mind on the compact.

Converting to a triple is more of a commitment to changing componetry.

[bfd]

Another consideration that I don't see mentioned is the ease of converting a double to a compact.

I wanted to try a compact after doing a century with 11k+ climbing and wanting lower gearing at some points. All it took to convert to compact was installing the compact crankset, lowering the FD a few mm, shortening the chain, and checking the shifting. Didn't even need to change the BB. Going back to a standard double would be equally easy if I change my mind on the compact.

Converting to a triple is more of a commitment to changing componetry.

Agree, A friend and I discussed this a few years ago and we agreed that if you're buying a new bike and wanted a triple, it made sense to get one as you can get all the components needed.

However, if you're "upgrading," then it made more sense to go compact, especially if you use Shimano STI levers since some of the left shifters are "double only" and getting a triple would require getting a whole new lever!

Now, if you run Campy ergo levers, then it doesn't really matter as the front shifter is a ratchet and will work as either a double or triple .Good Luck!

[MattTuck]

I like a triple for the same reason fiamme red pointed out, 50 is too big and 36 is too small for me. I live in the middle ring and pop up or down when I need to go big or small. It is a style of riding that suits me much more than the gearing on a compact.

Yeah, this has a lot to do with the amount of power you generate, and your preferred cadence, I too spend a decent amount of my time in the middle ring and like the range it provides. I'm still going to try a compact on the new bike because I think it is a cleaner solution, but realize I may be disappointed.

When I was lighter and stronger a few years back, I rode a lot of stuff in my big ring and climbed stuff in the middle ring on which I now use the middle and small rings, respectively.

My plan is to get back in better riding shape, rather than opt for the triple.

[Chance]

Another consideration that I don't see mentioned is the ease of converting a double to a compact.

I wanted to try a compact after doing a century with 11k+ climbing and wanting lower gearing at some points. All it took to convert to compact was installing the compact crankset, lowering the FD a few mm, shortening the chain, and checking the shifting. Didn't even need to change the BB. Going back to a standard double would be equally easy if I change my mind on the compact.

Converting to a triple is more of a commitment to changing componetry.

Are you saying future flexibility to make changes?

In a way that may go away completely between compact and standard. To the best of my knowledge Shimano's new DA has same cranks for compact and standard. It's just a matter of different size chainrings. Many, including on this forum, have called for a new "bolt circle standard" like 110 mm for all rings. Unfortunately Shimano is going unique with four arms. Beyond that it solves the problem of switching back and forth between small and large rings.

A triple could be the same if you start with 110 BC. You can also eliminate the granny ring if you want. And switching from triple to compact is easier than compact to triple.

How do you see this limitation/advantage unfolding on a practical basis?

[bfd]

Chance wrote:

<Are you saying future flexibility to make changes?

In a way that may go away completely between compact and standard. To the best of my knowledge Shimano's new DA has same cranks for compact and standard. It's just a matter of different size chainrings.>

Not aware of the latest DA cranks, but do they all have 110bcd? If not, "compact" cranks normally have 110bcd, while the *standard* cranks have 130bcd. If the cranks have that distinction, then chainrings are not compatible.

< Many, including on this forum, have called for a new "bolt circle standard" like 110 mm for all rings.>

Huh? 110bcd cranks have been around for a very long time! Many "touring" bikes back in the 70s and 80s used 110bcd, e.g., Sugino Mighty Tour crankset. Further, if its a triple crank, then the bcd was usually 110bcd for the front two rings with a 74mm bcd for the granny.

<Unfortunately Shimano is going unique with four arms.>

Hmm, that reminds me of the Shimano 9 speed "triple" crank that used a proprietary bolt pattern where it used a 130bcd for the front two rings, but instead of the normal 74mm bcd for the granny gear, that crank had a 92mm bolt pattern! There was exactly one chainring that would fit that ring - a 30t.

< Beyond that it solves the problem of switching back and forth between small and large rings. A triple could be the same if you start with 110 BC. You can also eliminate the granny ring if you want. And switching from triple to compact is easier than compact to triple.>

Agree!

<How do you see this limitation/advantage unfolding on a practical basis?>

A 110bcd on a double or a 110/74 on a triple would allow basically any chainring combo.

Good Luck!

[witcombusa]

I think it comes down to stigma. The other things you said seem true enough, but the cool factor (or uncool, in the case of a triple) seems to be the big deal. Luckily for me, I've never been cool and stopped caring about what other people think when I was in high school.

I actually prefer a wider Q. I fell into the trap of thinking lower Qs are better until I realized how much more comfortable I was on my tandem and touring bike than on my (at the time) road bike with a double.

Concerning set up...I'm barely adequate as a mechanic and I have three triples that work very well. If I can do it, it can't really be that hard.

I like a triple for the same reason fiamme red pointed out, 50 is too big and 36 is too small for me. I live in the middle ring and pop up or down when I need to go big or small. It is a style of riding that suits me much more than the gearing on a compact.


Also remember a compact doesn't have to be a 50-34. I have a 46-34 on a few bikes which is perfect for their intended use.

[Ralph]

Given that all cyclists do not have the same abilities and therefore don’t benefit from the same equipment equally, it would be nice to compare compact versus triple drivetrains as objectively as possible to help make an individual choice.

So far my list of significant differences between the two choices includes the following:



1) Cost: Triples usually cost a little more, in the order of $50 to $100 or so. Sometimes we can get them for same price.
2) Weight: Compact generally weighs less. Maybe in the order of 100 to 150 grams or so when comparing similar groups.
3) Electronic: To my knowledge triples are not available with electronic shifting. Ultegra and DA are double/compact only.
4) Stigma: Triples carry a slightly greater stigma for being for “beginners”, “weak”, and or “old” riders compared to compact.
5) Shifting: Compacts shift cleaner compared to granny-middle ring shifts. This is partly offset by fewer front shifts.
6) Q factor: Triples generally have a wider Q factor.
7) Ratios: Based on having more total gears, triples generally offer greater total range or closer gear spacing for equal range.

What else is missing? What other factors should a prospective buyer consider when comparing these two options?

Has anyone mentioned the fact that most all the triples use a 74 BCD small chainring, so you're not limited to a 30 tooth. You can also go down to 24 or 26 teeth. That means you can can run small cogs in rear also. A 12-25 cassette saves about the same weight over big cassete as the triple adds....if that's important to you. On my SQ taper triple, the small ring weighs 30 grams, the alloy bolts weigh 10 grams, and the built up bosses add a few grams. So if you ditch the triple, for a compact, you're not saving much. Think chain line most of time is better with triple. Use 42 most of time, and I have a life time supply of ramped and pinned 42's.

Sure Q is wider on Triple, maybe an issue for you, maybe not. My Record Triple puts feet equal Q both sides, unlike older triples that stuck drive side foot out a tad. Plenty of older Sq taper Triples on the Bay cheap. Shimano currently has plenty of new design Triples in their lineup, and Campy is bringing out new Triples in Centaur and Athena in 2013....both outboard bearing design with new design FD's. So I would say Triple use is growing again. And BTW....I have no trouble getting FD adjusted on Triple....but do have either head tube adjustable stops or Jag Wire inline stops to keep FD cable taunt so it has no slack. No extra clicks on new Campy shifters, and I have one UT and one Power TQ. Don't prefer one over the other. Both work fine. UT can dump some gears, not something I ever do, but think PT shifts better.

So to me....as an older guy who sometimes rides in steep hills, I prefer the Triple over the compact (and I've had a compact), and when I don't need much gear like for say around here, I still prefer a 39-52 or 39-50.

But like many of you, I know how to make either work just fine. There is new stuff in compacts also....check out Sugino. Ride what you want. Ride what you need. Ride what you think looks right for you.

[bigreen505]

I went from a 53/39 with a 12-32 to a triple with a 12-25 to a 50/36 with a 12-25 to a 50/34 with 11-28, 12-25 and 12-32. Now I'm going back to a triple. Who knows after that. I've noticed that I spend more time thinking about gears with the 50/34 than I ever did with the triple. I also seem to run a lower cadence with the compact, though I can't explain that one.

If you live somewhere that you can get away with a 50/36 or a large chainring smaller than 50, go with the compact. If your riding style or terrain are forgiving of bigger jumps between gears, go with the compact. If you are weight conscious, go with the compact. If you need a wide range or gears with tight spacing, you are not very strong and like to spin, can stomach the extra weight and front shifting problems, and constantly changing cassettes sounds like a pain, you are better off with the triple.

I don't think one is better than the other, but it is great to have options.

[bambam]

I prefer triples. I generally ride in the 42 and use 53 or 30 as needed. Sometimes I'm loaded down and sometimes not.
I have not tried a Compact but I can tell you when I'm riding a standard double I somtimes don't like it either.
It seems the 39 spins out much to fast and I am forced to used the 52 or 53.
It is something I need to get use to and not a big deal.

One advantage I see of the triple is in the case of problems with the rear. If you break a shifter/deraillier/cable you can find a cog on the back and lock it in. If you have a triple you have 3 speeds as opposed to 2.
BamBam

[Chance]

.............
A 110bcd on a double or a 110/74 on a triple would allow basically any chainring combo.

Good Luck!

Thanks, but have one of these already so it's not new to me. And know they have been around forever. My point on that issue was obviously not expressed clearly. Was just stating that some people suggested a long time ago (after "compact" 110 bolt circle became popular with 50/34 rings) that 110 BC should become the road standard at the expense of eliminating Shimano 130 and Campy 135 bolt circles.

It's still to be seen whether Shimano moves other groups to a single-size four-arm common bolt pattern for compact and standard ring sizes. In my opinion it's a safe bet Shimano will, based on their trickle down history.

Using same logic a road triple with 110 (or near-equivalent) instead of 130 or 135 would also offer more flexibility. Who knows, maybe Shimano will introduce a "triple" version of the new four-arm small-diameter cranks in the near future.

[christian]

Having this discussion without knowledge of a gear chart, one's own strength and pace, and the local terrain is like discussing whether a Dodo or a Moa would make a better guard bird. Interesting, but pretty useless.

(Moa, obviously)

[Chance]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that most all the triples use a 74 BCD small chainring, so you're not limited to a 30 tooth. You can also go down to 24 or 26 teeth.
.........

Good point. Better still if combined with 110 BC so middle and large rings can be downsized in proportion to granny. Otherwise the granny to middle (38T smallest middle for Shimano 130) is too big a jump for my liking.

[Chance]

Having this discussion without knowledge of a gear chart, one's own strength and pace, and the local terrain is like discussing whether a Dodo or a Moa would make a better guard bird. Interesting, but pretty useless.

(Moa, obviously)

Can not disagree more.

Exactly why the feedback was asked on an objective basis. My interest is to define issues for each of us to consider when making a choice between them. My preference is to avoid exactly what you propose. That to me is insane because no two riders are equal. What possible good would it do me to know whether you or anyone else can climb a 20 percent grade in the big ring?:rolleyes:

In other words don't care at all what you like best for yourself. Just want to know if you have identied differences that should apply to everyone. Like higher cost, weight, and so on. Generic things that will help "me" make a better informed choice.

[ofcounsel]

I run a 50/34 up front and a 12-32 in the rear. For my use, which ranges from flats to 6% grades going for miles on end, it's about perfect.

Oh yea, and I'm an out of shape fat guy too.

[bluesea]

I'd reiterate the desire if at all possible to stay away from the triple's wider q-factor and less snappy and precise front shifting. I find it all a significant downer.

[christian]

In other words don't care at all what you like best for yourself. Just want to know if you have identied differences that should apply to everyone. Like higher cost, weight, and so on. Generic things that will help "me" make a better informed choice.
Sure - unless you're strong enough to ride basically everything in the 50, or if you have hills that go steeply up and then steeply down, a compact sucks horribly. It requires cross chaining in all the usual gears at 16-19mph.

If you regularly ride faster than 20 mph on the flat, then it's fine, but in that case you can run a 50-39 and get better front shifting regardless.

[chismog]

Sure - unless you're strong enough to ride basically everything in the 50, or if you have hills that go steeply up and then steeply down, a compact sucks horribly. It requires cross chaining in all the usual gears at 16-19mph.

If you regularly ride faster than 20 mph on the flat, then it's fine, but in that case you can run a 50-39 and get better front shifting regardless.

There is this. I ride a compact all the time because I'm doing a fair amount of climbing on all my loops. But I do find for just riding along, I'm often in the 34/13 and crosschained. This is definitely a problem with a compact.

I do think the advent of 11T cassettes mitigates this somewhat. It means I can run a 34/12 of 34/13 pretty quietly.

[witcombusa]

Sure - unless you're strong enough to ride basically everything in the 50, or if you have hills that go steeply up and then steeply down, a compact sucks horribly. It requires cross chaining in all the usual gears at 16-19mph.

If you regularly ride faster than 20 mph on the flat, then it's fine, but in that case you can run a 50-39 and get better front shifting regardless.

It doesn't have to be a 50t ring.

[559Rando]

3 pages into this thread, I finally understood the OP's question. I think most of us misunderstood it.

We're so used to spouting off advice, we couldn't discuss the (in the words of the OP, Chance) "objective" differences.

[christian]

8) Compacts can use a short-cage rear dérailleur. Triples need a long-cage.
9) Compacts frequently suffer from cross-chaining gear combinations at "B" rider cruising speeds.
10) Compacts are more tolerant of stupid (<410mm) chainstay lengths.

[christian]

4) Stigma: Triples carry a slightly greater stigma for being for “beginners”, “weak”, and or “old” riders compared to compact.

Btw, I don't think this is true at all, and certainly not objective. When I see a rider with a compact, I generally assume he's weak and can't read a gear chart!

Full disclosure - I have a Centaur CT compact on my Merckx, because I've been too lazy to switch back after D2R2, but since you can ride almost everything in Westchester in the fiddy, it doesn't matter so much.

Still it ain't sur la plaque exactly.

[Ralph]

8) Compacts can use a short-cage rear dérailleur. Triples need a long-cage.
9) Compacts frequently suffer from cross-chaining gear combinations at "B" rider cruising speeds.
10) Compacts are more tolerant of stupid (<410mm) chainstay lengths.

I use a med cage RD with my Record triple. With 13-26 and 30-42-53 all combinations work fine. Add two links to chain and I can use a 13-29, and everything still works fine, but little to little combo (which one would never use) is a little too slack. 28-40-50 also works good.

If you race, or train for racing, ride with a training group, etc.....I can see why one would prefer a double....in whatever combination you need. Remember many of us ride all kinds of double combinations, and change them around all the time. It's never occured to me to just use stock chainring combinations....or even stock cassette combinations. You do have to be aware of what chainring differences the front derailleur is designed to shift...where the gooves are etc. Keep that in mind when designing your custom drivetain.

[AngryScientist]

I didnt read all the responses, but i think the "stigma" you refer to is not very objective:).

I'd like to add that the triple is also still king for touring duty, where the terrain and load can vary significantly.

[biker72]

A few years ago I had a Trek 520 with a 50-40-30 triple. Never used the 30. All my bikes now have a 50-34 compact.

[rain dogs]

If we want to do this objectively, we need more objectivity. There is a hell of a lot of veiled: I prefer this vs that logic here. 6 of the 7 first list of points basically reads as: These are the perceived advantages of compact over triple.

Objective means you're actually measuring these things, not just affirming them.

For example. What ratio range does a triple mated to a 12-25 give, vs a compact mated to a 13-28? And then what do they weigh? etc. etc. (that's just an un-researched example, to go with someones else's previous point.)

or... how much faster do you wear a chain/cassette combo on a compact due to all the cross chaining? ...measured in months.etc.

[Don49]

But I do find for just riding along, I'm often in the 34/13 and crosschained. This is definitely a problem with a compact.Wouldn't shifting to 50/19 avoid this?

[palincss]

Concern over possible obsolescence of parts seems objective. Although some have stated recently that both Campy and Shimano are still making or are introducing new triple groups. Not sure how serious a concern that should be for the life expectancy of a new group, but a concern nonetheless.

That concern is fear, not objectivity. When it comes to cranks, what are the consumables? Bottom brackets and chain rings. If you need crank arms you need a new crank.

So, what about rings? Get a 110/74 triple and you will probably always be able to get rings: the 110 bolt circle's the same as your "road compact," and the 74 is the same for the compact triple and road triple. Besides, both 110 and 74 have been around for many years and there is ample support.

[palincss]

I've done both quite a bit. I now prefer compacts.

One thing you do not mention is the ease of setup. In my experience, it's a lot harder to get the front shifting dialed in with a triple. This has to do with cable tension, which is how trim is adjusted for a triple front. It's just a finicky setup, and unless you get it just right you will be constantly trimming.


This is an issue with STI, not triples. I use bar end shifters, which are friction front, and there's nothing at all finicky about it.


The range of the triple vs compact gearing is not going to vary much for a typical road setup. The triple might get you one lower gear, with a whole lot more gears in between. This is great if you're touring or living in one particular ring most of the time. But if you're just looking for a lower gear and don't need all that granularity within your range, the compact is better imho.


As for range, my triples go down to a 22" low, and that's because I only have a 30T large sprocket. With a 34 or 36T I'd be down under 20". Match that with a compact double.


Especially with the advent of 10-11s gears, and 11-28 cassettes... I just don't think most road bikes need anything but a compact, with a cassette suited for whatever purpose you have.


10 and 11 speed cassettes extend the range in the high direction, with 11 tooth small sprockets, but not at the low end. I don't know anybody who has ever gone to a triple because they need higher high gears. If you need lower low gears, it's a lot easier to get them with a triple than any double.

[palincss]

I love a half-step plus granny setup on a bike with a triple. Sadly not easy to do anymore with current cassettes. 48-44-24 with a 14-34 6 speed. Loaded touring at it's best.

The 7 speed 13-34 Shimano K cassette is still current production. It's the last cassette suitable for half-step, works fine with a 44/48 + granny. You can use a 7 spd cassette on a 8+ freehub by using a spacer behind it. It even shifts great with friction levers.

[palincss]

Can not disagree more.
In other words don't care at all what you like best for yourself. Just want to know if you have identied differences that should apply to everyone. Like higher cost, weight, and so on. Generic things that will help "me" make a better informed choice.

Cost and weight are almost insignificant in this discussion. Getting the gearing you need, that gives you the range and the spacing you need with the shifting patterns that work for you and the way you ride on the terrain you ride, is the only thing that matters. Fail in that and you have failed totally. Succeed at the cost of a little money, easy to make up in other areas: cheaper tires, patch your tubes rather than throw them away at every flat, switch to PB&J sandwiches rather than power bars -- trivial savings for a trivial cost difference. As for the extra weight, those who have so little excess to spare off their own bodies won't be worried about gearing; and besides, for all but a tiny handful the weight differential between a triple and a double is meaningless anyway.

[deanster]

if you need the gearing that's not possible with a compact, get a triple drivetrain and don't look back. it's really that simple.

all those other things you're thinking about is background noise. seriously.

compacts are terrific, i've fully embraced 'em and am slowly converting all my road bikes to compacts. 11-28 cassettes w/a 34 small ring allows me to tackle pretty much anything. on one bike (a tandem) i have a triple, because as big as my ego is, there's no way in hell it will power us up a hill.... ;)

Amen Brother!!!!
I have always found this a very silly debate. I have ridden a compact and found that although I could climb most hills, the cross chaining and frequent shifting of the Front DR in the sweet spot of my pacing drove me crazy. At age 69 the triple is the best for my knees. A low gear when I started riding was a 47x 19 and I heard the same discussions about manliness when they came out with a 42 front chain ring and a 21 freewheel cog. I still have my knees pain free and I now ride nothing but triples with a 26 front CR and a 34 rear cog for the most severe. This made riding the 18% grades I encountered in Italy possible. I have more sane combinations for normal road riding. I don't use the granny gear often and find the middle CR best for all but the steepest climbs here in the Rockies.
Who cares what anyone thinks...just ride so YOU enjoy your experience...and remember that you still want to ride when you are an Vecchio Scoreggie like me.

[Chance]

If we want to do this objectively, we need more objectivity. There is a hell of a lot of veiled: I prefer this vs that logic here. 6 of the 7 first list of points basically reads as: These are the perceived advantages of compact over triple.

Objective means you're actually measuring these things, not just affirming them.
........

Tough crowd. Yeah, agree that nothing is perfectly objective. However, my goal was to obtain information that is based more on facts than personal preferences. That is, parameters that can be quantified if one was interested in doing so.

Don’t triples normally cost more? List prices are generally higher across the board. This applies to most brands and groups.
Don’t triples generally weigh a little more? Insignificantly more but slightly more nonetheless.
Q factor is generally wider for triples. And so on…..

Don’t know why you are challenging the objectivity angle. And for what it’s worth (and apparently contrary to your read of my intentions) my preference is actually to try one of the new triples. Was trying to make sure that my decision didn’t overlook some obvious disadvantage not yet considered.

Of the differences listed and or discussed above, front shift performance is my only major reservation. Cost, weight, Q-factor, stigma, and all other typical “triple” relative cons aren’t all that important to me. On the other hand the middle range gearing advantage is a major selling point. But it probably comes at the expense of sluggish shifting. Particularly when it involves the granny ring. At least that seemed the case with my older groups.


Thanks all for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

[54ny77]

you're overthinking it.

mount it, ride it, tally ho!

it's all academic until you pedal and see how it feels and how it works for you.

the good thing is there's a pretty good market for used triple drivetrain just in case you don't like it--and vice versa for compact stuff.

[JeffS]

Can not disagree more.

Exactly why the feedback was asked on an objective basis. My interest is to define issues for each of us to consider when making a choice between them. My preference is to avoid exactly what you propose. That to me is insane because no two riders are equal. What possible good would it do me to know whether you or anyone else can climb a 20 percent grade in the big ring?:rolleyes:

In other words don't care at all what you like best for yourself. Just want to know if you have identied differences that should apply to everyone. Like higher cost, weight, and so on. Generic things that will help "me" make a better informed choice.


More likely, this type of list serves to make people worry about issues that don't affect them.

How many people were perfectly happy riding the triple until they found out it wasn't cool?

Q-factor is another really good example. There's a general impression that lower is better with little to no information to back it up. Is a person who needs to be told that q-factor changes make an informed decision about how it affects them?

[rain dogs]

However, my goal was to obtain information that is based more on facts than personal preferences. That is, parameters that can be quantified if one was interested in doing so.

Don’t triples normally cost more? List prices are generally higher across the board. This applies to most brands and groups.
Don’t triples generally weigh a little more? Insignificantly more but slightly more nonetheless.
Q factor is generally wider for triples. And so on…..



This is my point. I'm not trying to bust your balls about objectivity. I'd honestly be very interested in a thorough objective analysis to wade through the marketing slop, but it may not be worth it. My hunch is that there is no real objective advantage to either, that's why they are both available.

Are triples really more expensive in the long run, when factoring in durability?
Are compacts meaningfully lighter when building for similar ratios?
How does the gap between gearing actually effect a rider, or does it?
etc. etc.

I for one would be very interested in the numbers if they were rigorous.
It'd be a fun read.

[Rueda Tropical]

I think a compact is preferable IF it provides the range of gears you need or want. Simpler, lower Q, lighter is better IF you are not compromising gearing you want / need.

I live in a flat area so 50/34 and 13/26 are way more gears then I really need. If I lived in a hillier area I'd just move to a something like 46/34 and 14/30 if I needed a lower gear then that for a really mountainous area then I would consider a smaller BCD then 110 so I could get a 44/30 up front. If 30-30 wasn't cutting it for the gradients then I'd go for a triple as I don't think I'd be happy with a big ring smaller then 44.

I like to keep things as simple as possible. But if you want a really wide range of gears the triple delivers that.

[Ken Robb]

The only time I find that close spacing between ratios matters is when I'm trying to hang in a paceline. There it may help me to match the group when there is a slight change in speed, wind, or grade.

When I ride alone there is no advantage for me between a 7 spd. triple vs. 10 speed triple as long as they have similar gear range overall.

Longer chainstays allow my triples to shift as well as my doubles. I assume this is because longer stays don't require the chain to move at as sharp an angle when I shift.

[Ken Robb]

When I ride a bike with the common Shimano triple crank with 50-42-30 rings I spend most of my time in the 42 and the middle of the cassette (15-19). I guess it should be no surprise to me that 42-17 is a very popular choice for single speed bikes.:)

[chismog]

I am reading lots of people talking about super low gear ranges for triples. Well, yeah... of course if you must have a 1:1 gear you'll need a triple. I read the OP question as more for comparison between compact and triple for regular road bikes where you could go with either, and in fact there are several groups like this.

Case in point: Ultegra 6603, DA 7803, Campy 10s centaur/chorus/record. None of these groups is really designed to shift much more than a 29 on the back (27T for the Shimano groups). None have a front ring smaller than a 30T. So we're not talking uber-low mtn or touring ranges here... These groups are all basically aimed at the same folks who might use a compact, and I think this was the question. How would you choose and what are the tradeoffs?

Apples to apples, not oranges.

[Chance]

When I ride a bike with the common Shimano triple crank with 50-42-30 rings I spend most of my time in the 42 and the middle of the cassette (15-19). I guess it should be no surprise to me that 42-17 is a very popular choice for single speed bikes.:)

Ken, is this something you modified or a misprint? Curious if you modified for improved performance.

Shimano typical early road triples (Ultegra, 105, Tiagra) were 52-42-30 and DA 53-39-30. Newer Shimano road triples have gone away from 42T in favor of 39T middle ring. Common now are 52-39-30 and 50-39-30.

Not trying to be picky because as others have mentioned there are plenty of combinations when used with different cassettes. Gearing needs are very personal. One guy in my area rides Ultegra triple with 11-21 cassette. For him gearing range is not the issue. He does it for tight gearing with a 9-speed. If he had an 11 speed maybe he'd use a double or compact. Not sure if it would make a difference.

[Chance]

I am reading lots of people talking about super low gear ranges for triples. Well, yeah... of course if you must have a 1:1 gear you'll need a triple. I read the OP question as more for comparison between compact and triple for regular road bikes where you could go with either, and in fact there are several groups like this.


Yes, wasn't trying to get bogged down in details or math. A spreadsheet can do that instantly. As others have stated, it's possible to combine compact with MTB cassette and get 1:1 low end. Or one could use an 11-30 road and super compact cranks with something like 46-30.

In my opinion it's best to first tackle the bigger issue of which system you think you may prefer first, then select gear sizes that suit your needs. Available choices can cover just about anything with either.

[christian]

In my opinion it's best to first tackle the bigger issue of which system you think you may prefer first, then select gear sizes that suit your needs.I think if you're a savvy and experienced cyclist, that's exactly what you don't want to do. Evidence should teach you what gears you need and what spacing you require. "Say, um, I like to cruise at 77 gear inches, and I can't tolerate spacing bigger than 7% until I get above the 19 cog." Then you can lay that out against a gear chart and see what gets you there. Starting with the "system" limits your options for no good reason. At the end of the day, the biggest objective difference between the two systems is whether either or both can get you the gearing you desire.

[Ken Robb]

I should have written 52-42-30 because that is the common spec and I have two bikes with them. OTOH I did have a 50-42-30 Shimano and a 48-38-28 TA Zephyr. But for me the difference between 50 and 52 is meaningless because if I ever go fast enough for me to spin a 50x12 or 50x11 I am probably on a hill so steep that I can do 40+ mph tucked in and coasting.

I meant to emphasize how useful a 42 ring is with a typical road cassette than have more chat about total gear range.

[rain dogs]

I think if you're a savvy and experienced cyclist, that's exactly what you don't want to do.

+1.

Starting with the system you think you may prefer first, is exactly the guessing game/opinion analysis the OP was trying to avoid, no? :confused:

Anyway, I don't want to add to the confusion (even if it's just mine)

[Chance]

I think if you're a savvy and experienced cyclist, that's exactly what you don't want to do.

-1

Does my opinion of self count?;)

Have been cycling a very long time and know well what gearing my bike needs to have under many different conditions. From climbing 20 percent grades when beat, to descending with a tail wind. And as previously stated, can choose both extremes of necessary gearing with either compact or triple. Range limitation of either is not a factor for me. My needs fall enough in the middle that either can be made to work just fine. Some here seem to think that the only reason to ride a triple is if you need it due to extended range. Honestly can’t relate to that mindset. Some riders may need a triple, but others may want a triple without needing it.

And gearing is not all black and white. You can make different compromises from one bike to the next.

Thanks again for feedback. Time to move on.

[Ralph]

I fall in the camp of liking a triple without needing it. It's easy to make an almost 1-1 with a double when I travel to the mountains...if I wanted that.

Like Ken says....I really like riding a 13-26 or 13-29 with a 30-42-52 (or 53) on the middle 42....mid cage RD. That's where I spend most of my time with a good chainline.

Around here, I ride a double, non compact, on other bike I set it up to ride anywhere with a triple.

[christian]

-1

Does my opinion of self count?;)

Have been cycling a very long time and know well what gearing my bike needs to have under many different conditions.
I have clearly misunderstood the point of this thread; initially you asked for objective differences between triples and compact doubles, then you said the best thing to do was choose the system you think you'll prefer and go from there, and now you're saying you know all the compromises and what works for you. All well and good, but at that point, who cares about the objective differences. You've just determined what you like, empirically, as I suggested you should.

Bizarre.