Fair criticisms of compact chainsets?

[potsy]

Bit undecided on this myself, I have 2 bikes with triples and 1 with a compact double.
Not being the fastest up hill I certainly couldn't have done a lot of the @ColinJ forum rides without my trusty low geared triple.

Only done one decently hilly ride on the compact bike and that was a struggle for me, have since put a slightly bigger 30t cassette on so will have to do another one sometime soon, certainly only having the 2 options upfront seems easier to live with than the occasional cross chaining on the triple, now if only it didn't have a BB30

 

[ColinJ]

Bit undecided on this myself, I have 2 bikes with triples and 1 with a compact double.
Not being the fastest up hill I certainly couldn't have done a lot of the @ColinJ forum rides without my trusty low geared triple.

That makes two of us depending on trusty triples on my rides!

And my Cannondale will soon be equipped with its own trusty triple, subject to either the old front mech coping with a triple chainset (which it looks like it might do) or an affordable alternative derailleur being purchased.

 

[KneesUp]

Just to point out I am using 10 speed, and could imagine 7/8 speed would be a it pants with a triple.

I ride a '21 speed' i.e a 3x7 - it's much preferable to the '12 speed' (2 x 6) I tried - that nearly killed me on these hills.

This entire debate is about having a good, even spread of gears that suit the sort of terrain you are on and the strength in your legs. When I used to cycle as a youngster I could really have coped perfectly well with a single speed - perhaps two speed (one for cruising, one for 'I'm late') Around here (and 20 years later) my gearing needs are considerably different. I expect I could be ok with a compact if the rear cassette had enough range to allow me to use the small chain wheel for uphill and flat.

The triple gives me a reserve set of low gears, and will be useful when I get time / fitness to ride longer, and also if / when I get chance to do a bit of touring.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

People get very emotional when it comes to gearing discussions and what chainset you need, but you can't tell anyone else that your setup is the only way to go and nothing else makes sense. The human engine is similar to a car engine in that each model has it's own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The gearbox on a Ferrari would be useless on a truck and vice versa, both have ratios and number of gears fitted to suit their requirements. The questions to consider are;

Is your top gear high enough for what you do?

Is your bottom gear low enough for what you do?

Are the ratios in between sufficient to enable you to keep a comfortable cadence at any speed in between without excessive shifting?

If the answer to all three question is yes, then you have the ideal setup, whether you have a single, five, 10 or 30 gears.

 

[cyberknight]

Possibly - I am old, heavy and with dodgy knees...barely ever used it though...what came with the bikes so...

I dont use a 50x 11 till i hit about 35 mph ............down hill mind.

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

A 50-11 is definitely needed on a downhill stretch at about -6%, 50-12 and it feels that bit too spinny.

 

[GrasB]

I just ride me bike.

I've yet to find anything in the Surrey Hills so steep I couldn't climb it on my compact. I shall keep looking.

I can just ride any sensible gearing & I can physically get on. However when I've got a choice I'll get VERY specific about exactly how things are set up. I've always been irritated by chainring changes, they're expensive in terms of rhythm breaks & are susceptible to chain dropping especially under power.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I can just ride any sensible gearing & I can physically get on. However when I've got a choice I'll get VERY specific about exactly how things are set up. I've always been irritated by chainring changes, they're expensive in terms of rhythm breaks & are susceptible to chain dropping especially under power.

Therein lies the nub of it. As an off-road-fat-tyre-only* I'm don't have the dedicated roadie's concern about the 'expense' of a change of cadence or a break in rhythm and as I don't race, not even SCR, I rarely, if ever, change gear under power.

I think the greatest benefit of a triple, apart from when lugging loads long distances, is when riding in a mixed ability group; it enables you to match pace with your less fast comrades on long i.e. alpine climbs,

*but even my mtb's are 2 x nn these days.

 

[GrasB]

I think the greatest benefit of a triple, apart from when lugging loads long distances, is when riding in a mixed ability group; it enables you to match pace with your less fast comrades on long i.e. alpine climbs,

That's a problem with your preconceptions of the limitations imposed by compact rather than the reality of it. The reality is that compact gearing is as wide as triple as in both cases you're limited by the wrap capacity of the rear mech rather than gear limits

 

[TheJDog]

That's a problem with your preconceptions of the limitations imposed by compact rather than the reality of it. The reality is that compact gearing is as wide as triple as in both cases you're limited by the wrap capacity of the rear mech rather than gear limits

Aren't there limitations to the size of the drop on a front mech, so a triple can go lower by virtue of having an intermediate step?

 

[GrasB]

Aren't there limitations to the size of the drop on a front mech, so a triple can go lower by virtue of having an intermediate step?

Rear wrap gives out first in my experience. Generally find you can do a 24-26t split on a compact with a <50t top chainring, an 11-36 cassette & 22t chainring split maxes out the most I've got out of a rear mech (47t capacity)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That's a problem with your preconceptions of the limitations imposed by compact rather than the reality of it. The reality is that compact gearing is as wide as triple as in both cases you're limited by the wrap capacity of the rear mech rather than gear limits

I've never ridden a compact with gearing that went as low as a triple, nor have I ever seen an ots bike specced so that it had that level of gearing. So not sure it is a preconception thing but rather more the reality of bikes folk can buy (rather than build).

Certainly my current bike (SRAM compact and the old campag "wide ratio" cassette from my previous bike) does not have the same spread of gears as the previous bike (same campag cassette and campag race triple chainset) but it has a perfectly adequate spread of gears, for the riding I do, unless I want to ride alongside someone twiddling in the significantly lower granny gear of their triple, that is....

 

[GrasB]

What is OTS? I can walk into my LBS, buy a bike to my specs if I ask & unless I spec something exotic (such as my custom 11-30 cassette) it's ready to take away in 45 min... the same time it takes for them to prep a bike straight out of the box.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

ots = off the shelf.

according to my LBS's only a tiny proportion of customers know what gearing they want, let alone need, and so the customer that asks for the gearing to be changed from the stock set-up is the exception rather than the rule. Which is probably why I see so many folk (mamils) struggling with huge gears in the Surrey Hills. My mate who works for Evans at Gatwick reckons it is less than one in 50 customers, even of those buying high-end bikes, who depart from standard spec for reasons other than fit.

 

[GrasB]

I know what the acronym means I was talking about what IS an OTS bike? When does it not become an OTS bike?

Anyway if you want to play the 'stock' game on the default options SRAM Compact WiFLi or Shimano Triple which has the wider gearing?

Anyway all of this is away from the point - Compacts are just as wide as a triple if the bike owner wants it, they just have to do a bit of leg work.