Compact or triple on my new bike?

[lulubel]

I disagree with the above in that with the triple, I probably do most of my riding in the middle ring, and that's mostly staying away from the bottom two and top two cogs at the rear, so very few chainring switches. With a standard 50-34 compact, I found I was constantly switching chainrings and having to double-shift at the rear at the same time to maintain a reasonable rhythm.

This for me too. Middle ring mostly, big ring occasionally, and granny ring rarely.

 

[PpPete]

Hilly country - definitely a triple.

I have both triple and compact. I disagree with the above in that with the triple, I probably do most of my riding in the middle ring, and that's mostly staying away from the bottom two and top two cogs at the rear, so very few chainring switches. With a standard 50-34 compact, I found I was constantly switching chainrings and having to double-shift at the rear at the same time to maintain a reasonable rhythm. I switched my compact to 48-36, with a 12-28 cassette and that has cut down on the front switches significantly, but has compromised hill-climbing a bit - and it's pretty hilly round here too.

This ^^^

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I have to say a ^^^
I have a triple, 26-38-48 I usually use the 38-48, the rear is 28-24-21-19-17-15-13, though I can change this to 32 if I want, I am looking for a 8 sp shifter so I can have 28-24-21-19-17-15-13-11 as I spin out on the hills, or the other way 32-26-23-21-19-17-15-13 and up the front front 26-38-48 to maybe 28-38-50.

I'm going to buck the trend and advise on a compact, with a 11-28 cassette. Low gear is around 30 inches, if I recall correctly and will get you up most things. You will spend less time shifting the front mech and it's nice and simple. I find triples annoying.

My lowest is 25.1" 26 front 28 rear if I put the 32 on its 21.9" quite a lot lower than the 30" you quote a compact 34/28 combination is 32.8".
The way its set up at the mo if I drop from the 48 to the 38 and down one its like going 2 gears lower, and if I drop one at the back its like going up one gear, on my shifters just one click on left and right, easier to do than write about.

 

[wealthysoup]

You can use a compact double with a wide ranging cassette and get a similarly low gear to what a triple would provide.

That said the jumps on gears (front and back will be bigger)

Only reason to get a double/compact that I know off is that they are easier to maintain. (and slightly lighter but I doubt if it's noticeable).

I've only had a triple so my view may be skewed, that said when going up a 10+% hill to get to your house after each ride sure makes you appreciate the granny gear.

As others have said, I spend most of my time in the middle ring at the front, rarely use the granny ring (but glad to have it when I do). Only use the big ring for downhills / keeping a fast pace (usually on a club run), and even then I still have enough gears on the rear to last most of the time

 

[Oldspice]

triple

 

[Erudin]

I'd go for a similar lowest gear as on you mtb, also its easy to convert a bike from triple to compact in future whereas changing compact to triple is expensive.

see: http://forums.cyclingweekly.co.uk/showthread.php?12873-How-easy-to-change-105-triple-to-compact

 

[yello]

I'm pondering a change of bicycle from the shopping trolley to a hot road bike, and I've been wondering time and time again about the choice of triple or compact.

Your circumstances are probably different to those of the OP. He had significant hills and weight to contend with. A triple in his case is the obvious knee friendly option.

I'd always say to anyone that's really unsure that a triple is always your best bet. That's not to say that a compact (or double even!) mightn't suit your needs but a triple is a safe option.

FWIW, I live in a lumpy area and ride triple, compact, double and fixed (63"). There are times I'm very pleased I have a triple... particularly after a long day ride as I have some testing little hills back up to my place.