Double, triple or compact? Help.

[deptfordmarmoset]

One difference between a triple and a compact will be that if you need a wide range of gears a triple will tend to have smaller step changes between cassette gears. This could help if you're a rider who likes to settle into a rhythmic cadence.

 

[coffeejo]

Shims?

Possibly. Whatever they're called, The Boss at my LBS describes them as "essential if you don't have gorilla hands".

 

[fossala]

I would either go with a triple or a double, as said earlier compacts are a pain. You are forever changing the rear cassette gear when you switch chainrings.

As you think you may need the extra help of low gears, get a triple. If you get stronger, put a 11-25 or 11/23 cassette on. I use 11/25 for commuting and when I do touring on the bike in September I will throw on a 12/30 to help me get my loaded bike up the steep hills at the end of a long day.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

compact would be my choice due to the better chain line and better pedal stance

 

[tigger]

I found I had to change gears on the rear when I switched chainrings on a triple too. And with a triple you have to switch chainrings more frequently, which can be a more intrusive change. Get an 11-28 or similar cassette on a compact chainring and you have the same range of gears as most standard triples. With this set up, and providing you are reasonably fit, you will stay in the big ring on some reasonable drags too, only changing to the small ring on proper hills. A 50/28 is the same gear as a 39/22 for example. So when you think about it, you probably change less on a compact than a triple. 10 or 11 speed compacts any day I say.

 

[montage]

I found I had to change gears on the rear when I switched chainrings on a triple too. And with a triple you have to switch chainrings more frequently, which can be a more intrusive change. Get an 11-28 or similar cassette on a compact chainring and you have the same range of gears as most standard triples. With this set up, and providing you are reasonably fit, you will stay in the big ring on some reasonable drags too, only changing to the small ring on proper hills. A 50/28 is the same gear as a 39/22 for example. So when you think about it, you probably change less on a compact than a triple. 10 or 11 speed compacts any day I say.

50/28 makes chain's cry

 

[Kestevan]

I'd have a look at an SRAM setup if you have the option..

The Apex wifli allows a 50/34 front with a 11-32 rear. You should be able to ride up pretty much anything with that setup. Oh, and the brake lever and shifter paddles can be adjusted with a build in screw to bring them closer to the bars for those with small hands.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My audax-y bike has a campag 'race triple' 30 - 42 - 52 and campag's 13 - 28 cassette

Never had a problem adjusting the mechs to work in harmony with one another.
Never (yet) had a hill I've had to walk, albeit I might be going up slower than if I was walking.
Some roadies point and laugh at the cage length on the rear mech and claim it is ugly. Woe betide them if I pass them walking on a climb.

Without luggage riding solo I rarely if ever use the small ring these days in day-to-day use since my leg strength and fitness are such I don't need it. (But it is darned useful when commuting on 'recovery ride' days to get up the 15% hills)
With luggage, think fast credit card touring, a couple of panniers say, the small ring is useful when one is tired at the end of the day and there is one more big hill, or even mountain, to get over.
When riding in a group the small ring is, basically, more sociable. It enables me to ride at a pace that others can manage, this is a good thing if say you're riding up a mountain pass with a weaker rider.

 

[potsy]

Shims?

Possibly. Whatever they're called, The Boss at my LBS describes them as "essential if you don't have gorilla hands".

I got those fitted to my CX bike and they make a real difference to those of us with normal sized hands and not big gorilla ones, stupidly I forgot to ask for them to be put onto my new bike so will have to sort that out at some point.
I like my triple gearing, middle ring just seems 'right' for me for most speeds along the commute, the new bike has a compact 50/34 and 12-28 which surprisingly to me has found me bowling along in the big ring pretty much all the time, saying that it's not done any hill climbing yet
Gearing can be changed afterwards if you're not happy though MT, within reason anyway

 

[tigger]

50/28 makes chain's cry

Mine doesn't. Correct chain length, Front Derailleur set up right (I don't even need to trim my Sram Red) and properly indexed rear gears. My last chain did 2500 miles until chain checker said there was 0.75 of stretch. Big to big is absolutely fine, small to small(s) is where you don't need to be...

 

[Mange-tout]

Hi again,

Well after all your advice (and I think from your posts compacts or triples are like Marmite, you either love 'em or hate 'em) I've decided to go for a triple for the range and extra low gears, which I know I will need at least at first. Better to be safe than sorry. I'm leaning towards the Trek Lexa SL T or the Specialised Dolce Sport, although will have to have another search based on triples only, to make sure there's not a model I've missed. I'm happy with my decision now, thanks.

(I couldn't find any bike with the Sram WilFi system but did get a demonstration of it on line- interesting concept).

 

[gavintc]

A very simple way to understand gears is that the relationship is easily worked out. If you have a 50 tooth front cog and a 25 cog rear, a complete revolution of the pedals (front cog) will turn the back wheel twice 50/25. If you were to select a front cog of 30 teeth and had a 30 teeth rear cog, one revolution of the pedals would turn the back wheel once. The more turns of the back wheel for one turn of the pedals, the harder it is and the further you go. The closer you get to one turn of pedal turning the back wheel once, the easier it is, but you dont go very far. Hope this is easy to understand.

 

[gavroche]

I have a triple with 11-30 cassette which is very useful. ( loads of hills here in North Wales) and 52-42-30 chain ring. I only use the 52 when I go down hill or on a flat road with the wind behind.

 

[dellzeqq]

I would either go with a triple or a double, as said earlier compacts are a pain. You are forever changing the rear cassette gear when you switch chainrings.

As you think you may need the extra help of low gears, get a triple. If you get stronger, put a 11-25 or 11/23 cassette on. I use 11/25 for commuting and when I do touring on the bike in September I will throw on a 12/30 to help me get my loaded bike up the steep hills at the end of a long day.

Agent Hilda has a 50/34 compact and it's as easy as pie,

 

[e-rider]

I'm looking for a road / audax type bike for a short lady with small hands, so am really looking at a ladies bike for the short reach, and comfort in mind rather than a 'race' bike. Trouble is I think I need a triple as I use all the gears on my hybrid, but there's much more choice in my price range (about £600-£800) if I stick to a double or compact (I've decided to aim for the new Sora at least). But I'm not sure if I'm mistakenly ignoring the ones that aren't triple and therefore limiting my choice.

For example, I could get a triple with 50/39/30 and 11/28 or 'compacts' of 50/34 and 12/30 or 11/28 or 12/28. Trouble is I don't know which of the rear numbers make the difference? Which of these compacts have the lowest gear? Is it the 11/28 or 12/30? And what difference would I notice between the 50/34 compact and 50/39/30 triple if the rear cogs are the same?

Thanks in advance!

road bike - flat topography - no luggage = standard double
road bike - hilly topography - no luggage = compact
road bike - flat topography - luggage (panniers) = compact
road bike - hilly topography - luggage (panniers) = triple