Double or triple chainset?

[MacB]

Yup...and you can just make your brain hurt trying to work all these things out!! The combinations people can achieve through chainring/cassette sizing are bad enough, let alone with hub gears (be they Alfine/Rohloff 7-14 speeds or SRAM DD-type triple replacements) thrown in. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all suits all riders all the time' gear system, nor is there likely to be!

I just take issue with any suggestion that I was led into the choices I made through marketing etc. I like Campag shifting. I considered the reasoning behind 11 speed and it stood up. I knew a compact suited me and the bike just nicely. Athena had excellent reviews, and a friend of mine had 11 speed Record. Hence, I went for Athena. It works for me. Deal with it....

??? deal with what, you can run whatever you like, no-one cares, what they do care about is the information given out around doubles, compacts, triples, etc and how much the 'industry' caters to customer needs or marketing tries to lead the customer to what is easiest/most profitable for the manufacturers. Or are you going to try to tell me that there is no macho factor around the use of 'proper' road doubles, over compacts and over triples, in that order? I mean, even the term 'granny ring' says a lot.

But as all round cycling advice goes - this works for me, a compact is a good choice, yes I have to get off and walk sometimes but I'm ok with that - it's hardly ringing endorsement territory

 

[User482]

I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.

 

[StuAff]

I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.

No, it gets you up anything. Possibly. It all depends on an individual's capabilities and where you're riding.... Alpe d'Huez? Tourmalet? Ventoux? Compacts proved 'sensible' enough for the friends who've ridden up those. And they seem to cope just nicely in the UK as well. I'd want a triple for those...but I'd probably end up walking anyway.

 

[StuAff]

But as all round cycling advice goes - this works for me, a compact is a good choice, yes I have to get off and walk sometimes but I'm ok with that - it's hardly ringing endorsement territory

 

[StuAff]

Or are you going to try to tell me that there is no macho factor around the use of 'proper' road doubles, over compacts and over triples, in that order? I mean, even the term 'granny ring' says a lot.

Yup, you're right there.

 

[Glover Fan]

Like helmets, this is a tedious debate. Also like helmets it is all down to personal experience and what you want from cycling. I personally haven't yet found a hill that has demanded more than a 34/26 with my compact configuration. But then I haven't yet tried the rosedale chimney or "The Struggle" on my road bike, when I walked up parts on my triple based MTB.

 

[yello]

Hopefully, I shall be able to give an opinion based on personal experience shortly when I change triple for compact.

I'm just waiting for the new bottom bracket to arrive.... which will undoubtedly require it's own tool to fit... and then I'll discover that I will require a new front mech too.... and then new shifters.... and they whole process will end up costing way too much in terms of time and money... all just to satisfy my own curiosity. After which, I'll undoubtedly refit the triple... and the misses will look at me in confounded bemusement and shake her head. I can be so predictable at times.

 

[barongreenback]

Personally, I could do with an electric motor as well as a triple

 

[aberal]

I didn't have to walk any hills on my lejog. But I had sensible gears. 30/27 gets you up anything.

As would a 34 (compact) with a 32 rear cog, giving you virtually identical ratios. Thus a compact with an equivalent rear cog (using your turn of phrase) will get you up anything.

This response typifies most of the responses from the pro-triple faction here - the reality is (and in answer to the original question) you don't NEED a triple. You may choose to have one, you may prefer the wee micro in-betweeny ratios it gives you - but you don't NEED one. What you NEED is a low gear to suit your capabilities and that can be achieved with a compact, which is why the manufacturers are supplying them. They provide a really low gear for those who want it - a decent spread of ratios, a simpler mechanism in the changing, a better angle for the chain to run through (thus reducing wear) and a admittedly minor weight advantage. There is - literally only one disadvantage to a compact over a triple - and that is the size of the drop down (or up) between the large and small chainrings. That can be dealt with easily, frankly. It's not a big issue.

 

[Hacienda71]

Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?

if it's a long-arm shimano mech, i'd expect it to take that size of sprocket. you can get those to at least tiagra level…

 

[aberal]

Serious question, can you run a 32 tooth rear with any road mech other than Sram or would you be stuck with them?

My tourer mixes an XTR rear mech with Ultegra shifters.

 

[User482]

<br />As would a 34 (compact) with a 32 rear cog, giving you virtually identical ratios. Thus a compact with an equivalent rear cog (using your turn of phrase) will get you up anything.<br /><br />This response typifies most of the responses from the pro-triple faction here - the reality is (and in answer to the original question) you don't NEED a triple. You may choose to have one, you may prefer the wee micro in-betweeny ratios it gives you - but you don't NEED one. What you NEED is a low gear to suit your capabilities and that can be achieved with a compact, which is why the manufacturers are supplying them. They provide a really low gear for those who want it - a decent spread of ratios, a simpler mechanism in the changing, a better angle for the chain to run through (thus reducing wear) and a admittedly minor weight advantage. There is - <i>literally </i>only one disadvantage to a compact over a triple - and that is the size of the drop down (or up) between the large and small chainrings. That can be dealt with easily, frankly. It's not a big issue.<br />

A 32T rear cog won't fit with a standard road rear mech, so your idea is a non-starter.

 

[fimm]

Thanks all, having read all the comments it is probably best to go for a triple - maybe I should have said at the start that I am female so don't have the strength that some of the guys on here have.

I am quite fit (if I go out cycling with my friends I'm usually miles ahead without even trying) and my asthma isn't too bad but I do have a tendency to keel over on hills during the pollen season and very cold weather.

I shall have a wander around some bike shops and try before I buy.

Another female here. I'm not going to get into the debate, but I would like to just point out that it isn't absolute strength that you need, it is power to weight ratio - these poor men have lug their greater weight up the hills, while you and I are lightweights and don't have so much to shift! (This is why my boyfriend, who is 5' 5" and about 9 stone, is very good up hills, he has the strength but not much weight to shift) The tables are turned on the downhills, when gravity is a help rather than a hinderance...

For the record, I have a standard chainring on my road bike, with a 9 speed cassette. I have no idea what gear ratios I have, though.

 

[StuAff]

A 32T rear cog won't fit with a standard road rear mech, so your idea is a non-starter.

Are SRAM Apex and Rival not standard road mechs then? And actually you could use a SRAM XX (MTB) rear derailleur with SRAM road gear, thus enabling you to go down to 34x36 with a compact.
Idea definitely not a non-starter.