Fifty Plus (50+) - Future-Proofing Decision on Triple or Compact Double Gearing for New Bike

I am getting a new frame and making decisions about the drive train. I am trying to "future proof" the decision, anticipating that five years into the future things might change with my already compromised knees causing more issues.

My choices are to get a compact double (Shimano 7950) or a Campy triple with a compatible cassette. I am assuming that for riding the hills where I live (average ride is 2-3K of climbing) either will be fine now, but in the future the triple may be the best option. However, the 7950 might offer an upgrade path to electronic shifting that the Campy triple does not.

For a five year decision .... what would you do?

metalheart44, Prudence says a triple, either standard or compact.

Brad

If you future proof it with Apex rather than a triple you actually get more "protection".

34/32 = 1.06
30/26 = 1.15

If you future proof it with Apex rather than a triple you actually get more "protection".

34/32 = 1.06
30/26 = 1.15

What about 30/32, 28/32, 26/32? Still more potential range with a triple. Also, Apex is not the only option for a wide range compact. But it really comes down to preferences. Go with what you like best now. If your priorities change in 5 years, you can change then.

Why would you not want a triple?

IMO, it's probably best to take advantage of the abilities you now have, the way you now want to, and worry about accommodating future decreases in abilities when they inevitably get here. If you want a double and it has a sufficient gearing range for your current capabilities, go for it, because at some point in the future you will undoubtedly no longer have the option.

Why would you not want a triple?

If the OP wanted a triple, he wouldn't be wanting to future proof a compact double.

Why would you assume your subjective preferences are universal standards?

2-3k of climbing is not much but what about the grade? If you have in excess of 10% then I would say triple but would that suit you now? Can you ride the hills ar present with a compact with gears to spare?

If I were to buy another bike right now I would get a compact 50/34 with a 12/27 cassette- The same as I have right now on my main ride. But 2nd ride has a 50/39/30 triple with a 12/25 cassette. Same hills at up to 15% for about a mile and the compact will do them. Only thing I would do is get the brifters and front derailler for a triple but still run a compact. Then at a later date- say 5 years time- I could change the Crank to a triple if required. The triple FD and brifter can be set up for a double in the meantime with no compatability problem.

Reason I say get a compact is that I like compacts. I do find that I have to use the granny on the triple- but that is due to the 39t middle ring not being as low as the 34t for the 15% slopes. The reason I got the triple is for mountains which I hope to get back to shortly. 10 miles uphill at an average of 8% and I do need that 30/27.

Here's my take on it FWIW. I've had standard double, a triple (30/27 low gear) and now a compact double (both 34/28 and 34/32). What I've been able to learn is, for me, the triple with its wider stance (q factor) is a problem for both my knee and hip on the right. I find a narrower q factor works better for me. The gear range I am able to use with a compact is better for climbing. It shifts marginally better and the steps between the gears are really not much different than the triple. I have the option to use the bike with the 11/32 cassette (requires a mtb rear der.) for the really steep stuff. That gear is lower than the 30/27 I used to have. I can in the future add an 11/34 or 36 cassette for even lower gears. 34/36 would actually be too low I think. It would be better to lose weight IMO. lol

What I give up with wide range cassette is a 16 gear. I do miss it at times on the flats. But, I could just replace the cassette (11/21) and chain for a flat ride if I wanted, though I almost never ride the flats. A 50/11 gear is taller than a 53/12. So, to summarize :rolleyes:, I think the compact geared bike can be setup however you wanted it to be. Having a few spare parts would allow it to be tailored to just about any ride. :thumb:

Since you are looking at DA 7950 I guess money isn't as much an issue. My wife's bike has SRAM Red with a compact and XX rear der. and an 11/32 cassette. She loves it. My Di2 bike has the compact crank and an 11/28 cassette. Works great!

I have considered Apex ... but it is a fancy Titanium frame and vanity has me desiring a blingy drive train to match the bike. If Apex offers the best gearing option, I am not opposed, but would prefer something like a Shimano 7900 or Campy. As to why a triple ... the gearing chart below shows that a triple offers lots of options in the lower and middle range that I find attractive now and possibly in the future. Regarding the grades, they are 9-12% and at times there is more climbing than 2-3K, but that is an average. A constant flat spot is hard to find where I live, unless I go down to the valley to ride where the bike trail offers miles of flats.

From what I can tell, Campy is not making it easy to buy a triple ... they prefer selling customers a compact double and 13-29 cassette and then it seems one has to buy a NOS 50,40,30 crankset and chorus level shifers and derailleurs. The Campy compact may offer a better current option with the 13-29 cassette, but a longer derailleur on a 7900 group would allow using the Apex cassette, or so I am told

Sorry, can't seem to paste in the gear chart
http://www.kstoerz.com/gearcalc/compare/image.php?lbl=1&tsid1=1&igbbid1=1&cogs1=13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29&rings1=50,40,30&ighid1=1&tsid2=1&igbbid2=1&cogs2=13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29&rings2=50,34&ighid2=1

One more thing to consider. I believe, though I have no insider info, that triples will soon go the way of the dinosaur. SRAM doesn't make a road triple and many if not most new mtbs are now doubles. If mtbs are going to wide range doubles, as my 2011 Epic Expert 29er has, what does that mean for road bikes? Just something to keep in mind when looking a few years down the road.

9 to 12% and there are still the two options. Think I would go for the triple though as although you can get a wider range cassette (11/34) to go with the 50/34 on a compact- The spacing of the cassette gears is too wide for my comfort. I even get annoyed at the 21-24-27 on the 12/27 cassette and why I fitted a 12/25 on the triple cranked bike.

Depends on whether you can take the wide ratios on the MTB type cassette- I can't on the road but never even notice them when offroad.

Although I am suggesting the triple for you--I am still staying with my compact on my main ride.

Since you are looking at DA 7950 I guess money isn't as much an issue. My wife's bike has SRAM Red with a compact and XX rear der. and an 11/32 cassette. She loves it. My Di2 bike has the compact crank and an 11/28 cassette. Works great!

Another option I wasn't aware even existed.

I run a Ultegra double crankset in front (50/34) a SRAM 12-30 cassette in the rear with a Ultegra mid-cage rear derailuer. The RD is speced for 27t max rear cog, but the spec. seems conservative as the RD clears the 30t cog I am running just fine and my shifting is crisp. This derailuer has a 34 tooth take-up capacity which is right where I am (50-34)+(30-12).

I do 2000 feet ascent round trip on my daily commute (including two 10% grades) and have done many long mountain climbs with this bike and never once wished for a triple. Occasionally wish for a little more granularity between gears, but usually only when I am riding into the wind.

If the OP wanted a triple, he wouldn't be wanting to future proof a compact double.

Why would you assume your subjective preferences are universal standards?

Actually, I don't have a horse in this race. I asked an open ended question with the sole objective of listening to the OP's reasoning.

First, I don't think there is such a thing a "future-proofing". Especially if the manufacturers have their way. And if you're planning to go to Di2, the only part of the drivetrain the doesn't get thrown away in the upgrade is the crank. So worrying about at a fairly inexpensive item as compared to the rest of the 7900 stuff you'd be throwing away, isn't future proofing anything but Shimano's share price.

Either drivetrain will get you up a climb. What makes the difference for me is ordinary everyday riding. I've come to really like close-ratio cassettes for the "granularity" woodway speaks of above--especially into the winds around here. The only way I can have that granularity, and wide range is with a triple. Both my commuting bikes are triples.

Both my fun/club/century ride bikes are standard doubles, so I understand the attraction to doubles. I'm not yet to the point where tossing a 12-28 on the back and standing to climb is problem. When it does become an issue, those bikes will be getting triples too. Actually, one of them already has a left shifter for a triple. It's just pulling two rings now.

If I were spec'ing a hill-riding bike right now, I would try an "ultra-compact" double crankset. SRAM has some mountain cranksets that you can mix and match with road cassettes.

They have a 28 x 42 crankset in this line:


http://sram2x10.com/?page_id=1044

...which, matched with a 11/32 rear cassette gives you a low of 23 gear inches (plenty low) and a high gear of 102 gear inches (plenty high for an old guy like me).

There are other cranksets available from Velo Orange and others that will yield similar set-ups. This is just an example.

First, I don't think there is such a thing a "future-proofing".


+1

10 miles uphill at an average of 8% and I do need that 30/27.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

For a five year decision .... what would you do?

go with the compact double-- if in 5 years you need something else, you can always sell your bike on CL or ebay and buy another one that fits your needs, whatever they may be, 5 years from now... and remember, there's nothing wrong with "n+1"

train safe-

First, I don't think there is such a thing a "future-proofing".

He didn't mean future proofing against the vagaries of the industry, he meant future proofing against his own diminishing fitness and knee condition.

But other than that, it's another useful point of view :-)

He didn't mean future proofing against the vagaries of the industry, he meant future proofing against his own diminishing fitness and knee condition.

But other than that, it's another useful point of view :-)

I would still suggest there is some folly in trying to predict what one's physical condtion will be in five year. Five years ago I was not as fit as I am today. And who knows, I might not make it another five years. I'd make my decison on what would give me the most pleasure/function right now. If we were talking about a really significant amount of money, say for a new home, I'd be much more inclined to try to envision the future. The stakes are simply higher, but for the drive train on a bicycle, I'd go with "now" as the determining factor.

Oh, yes and one other thing I would consider. In five years I would hope to have put enough miles and wear on drive train that all of it would need major overhauling.

I have a Campag race triple 50, 40 and took off the 30 and substituted a 24t cog.

I'm just a tourist , its a touring combination in spite of being on a Road bike ..

singing .. when I'm 64, since it kicks in this autumn.

[frankly I ride my IG hub bikes the most these days ...
... Brompton goes into the Bar with me]

I would still suggest there is some folly in trying to predict what one's physical condtion will be in five year. Five years ago I was not as fit as I am today. And who knows, I might not make it another five years. I'd make my decison on what would give me the most pleasure/function right now. If we were talking about a really significant amount of money, say for a new home, I'd be much more inclined to try to envision the future. The stakes are simply higher, but for the drive train on a bicycle, I'd go with "now" as the determining factor.



I dunno if you've noticed, but for about what some people spend on a bike, you can buy a house in Detroit.

http://www.trulia.com/property/3046350518-3739-Columbus-St-Detroit-MI-48206

I'm 56 and can get up anything I need to with a 41 tooth chainring and a 23 tooth cog (but then again the "mountains" here in south Louisiana aren't very steep or long). Hopefully, I'll still be able to accomplish the same when I'm 61, but only time will tell.

ok ... all useful and civil comments and suggestions. I will buy the idea that future proofing is folly. It may be just another anxious way of framing the issue of what is the better choice for now given an uncertain future. Two heart attacks later, I appreciate how uncertain the next day may be, so buying for now and adjusting when and if there is a five year future is probably the best bet. I will probably get one or another compact, which ever can be maintained easier by some LBS, with the lowest gearing that is available. If the hills hurt my knees, then I will walk. It really is not about strength, I have enough of that. The issue is managing the strength so that I do not hurt my knees and then riding will not be an option. These are very helpful comments and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all the questions and replies!

Do you have a preference for the way either Shimano, SRAM or Campagnolo shifters work?

If you decide to go with SRAM, remember that all the SRAM road groups are cross-compatible, so you could use Red shift/brake levers with a Rival or Apex mid-cage RD and 32 tooth cassette to get the same gearing as Apex but with higher level components. Or you could use any of the SRAM 10 speed MTB RDs to get even wider range with a 34 or 36 tooth RD.

If you are truly concerned about how fragile your knees are, and you want to continue riding well into the future on the same bike, you really should consider a triple

.And maybe even look at an MTB or what Shimano calls a trekking crankset -- that is, 26-36-48.

You might lose some top-end speed, but realistically, how often do you use the big ring anyway? And the difference between a 48t on an MTB and a 50T on a compact double is not that significant.

The wider Q might be an issue, but the option of going even lower on the granny with a 22T might be something you will be grateful for into the future... or at least your knees will be.

The future expansion of a triple is far greater than that of a compact. Assuming you expect your leg capability or health to decay in 5 years, you need a form that will allow you to add a smaller granny, possibly requisite middle and outer rings. At the outset it must have the proper arm length, the suitable Q, and ... well I think that's it. What you cannot modify in the future without crankset replacement are arm length, Q, and the lower limit of the rings. Select either a 110/74 BCD triple or a microcompact triple like the Sugino Impel. If you don't need super low now, don't buy super small rings.

If Campy can't do it then they can't do it - there are other good options. FSA have decent carbon triples, and there is SRAM Red as well. And as Rowan suggests, the MTB or trekking set of parts might be where you need to look.

You need to design the cassette in conjunction with the chainset, to get a GROUP of gears that will be suitable, not having excessive jumps nor have excessive gear duplication. Clearly there is a lot of judgment in this decision-making process, that's why nobody here is giving you a clear solution.

I'd get a 110/74 that can handle 10-speed (probably Sugino, I guess), set it up for what I need now, then adjust the setup if injuries occur and dictate a change. You'll be able to do granny rings as low as 26 teeth, maybe 24. With a big cassette, you could have a low gear 19 inches. This is so low that it could become hard to ride the bike fast enough to stay upright.

But if you're worried about your knees, you need to spin and need not to have excessively long crank arms. Also pedals that get your foot angles correct. Fit enters into the picture.

I suspect the next few years will see the big manufacturers dropping the triple chainset altogether.

I ride a Campy Record triple and at 66, find it perfect for hills. Have a compact double on my Surly Cross Check, but would not take it on the hills I ride.

I suspect the next few years will see the big manufacturers dropping the triple chainset altogether.

Possibly, but I don't think so. Wide range compact doubles will become the prominent choice for the road, but triples will still be strongly preferred by loaded touring riders and a small but persistent portion of recreational riders on road bikes. I don't see them going away as an option for MTBs anytime soon if ever. MTB doubles will be an increasingly popular choice, especially for performance oriented riders, but triples will continue to be a popular choice for many.

My guess is that Shimano will keep making triples for 105 and lower for a few years. The remaining road triple crowd may eventually be served by some version of a MTB triple.

If not, there will always be options from smaller companies.

metalheart44, I've a 52-42-30 triple installed on my distance bike due to a knee injury. While my knee continues to improve and I use it less than before, it's going to stay on that roadbike... it came in handy in the past and might also again in the future.

ciocc_cat, On my rat bike the only age related change I made was to swap from a 12-21 to a 13-23 for riding on my part of the Gulf Coast where hills are actually an overpass. :)

Brad

Possibly, but I don't think so. Wide range compact doubles will become the prominent choice for the road, but triples will still be strongly preferred by loaded touring riders and a small but persistent portion of recreational riders on road bikes. I don't see them going away as an option for MTBs anytime soon if ever. MTB doubles will be an increasingly popular choice, especially for performance oriented riders, but triples will continue to be a popular choice for many.

My guess is that Shimano will keep making triples for 105 and lower for a few years. The remaining road triple crowd may eventually be served by some version of a MTB triple.

If not, there will always be options from smaller companies.


And on the used market.

MTB doubles will be an increasingly popular choice, especially for performance oriented riders, but triples will continue to be a popular choice for many.


Most of the MTB'ers that I ride with will buy a triple, pull off the large ring and replace it with a bash guard. I provides extra clearance and protects the teeth of the middle ring when going over large rocks and logs, but still allows the big ring to be put back on if the bike is going to be taken on the road or ridden on fire roads, where the big ring will make a difference.

Road Fan is right about selecting the right cassette set-up, too, and matching it your chainset. I've persisted with the standard cassette offerings from various companies except Campy on my bikes, but there are some annoying and significant differences in the steps between cogs.

It might be wise to choose a lower level of cassette and carefully research what cog arrangement is available on each... then buy two cassettes that you can dismantle and then assemble with the right cogs for you. As far as I am aware, for example, both Campy and Shimano in their higher-quality ranges, and possibly SRAM, all have several of the larger cogs attached to a spider that doesn't allow tailored assembly.

I know that where I live, one bike shop has a big wall board of cogs that you can just saunter up to, select what you want and assemble your own. It may well be that you could stand fitting a touring-type cassette as the late Sheldon Brown detailed on his website.

I am not a user of the smaller, niche company cranksets, but certainly looking at those options is important if Q is an important factor in preserving your knees. I know also that there are options available for the Shimano road triple to take the granny ring down to 26T.

ok ... all useful and civil comments and suggestions. I will buy the idea that future proofing is folly. It may be just another anxious way of framing the issue of what is the better choice for now given an uncertain future. Two heart attacks later, I appreciate how uncertain the next day may be, so buying for now and adjusting when and if there is a five year future is probably the best bet. I will probably get one or another compact, which ever can be maintained easier by some LBS, with the lowest gearing that is available. If the hills hurt my knees, then I will walk. It really is not about strength, I have enough of that. The issue is managing the strength so that I do not hurt my knees and then riding will not be an option. These are very helpful comments and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all the questions and replies!


I think you can "future proof" by using BikeWNC's method he discusses in his post. By using a compact double along with a MTB RD you can have gears that are even easier than most standard Triple setups. I've been using that arrangement for several years and it works perfectly. The new 10 sp 11-32 to 12-36' cassettes also allow for a very wide range of gear inches.

Oh, yes and one other thing I would consider. In five years I would hope to have put enough miles and wear on drive train that all of it would need major overhauling.

Chains, cassettes, sure...even chainrings. But are modern derailleurs & brifters really so shoddily built that ~30-50,000 miles is considered a reasonable lifetime?

Chains, cassettes, sure...even chainrings. But are modern derailleurs & brifters really so shoddily built that ~30-50,000 miles is considered a reasonable lifetime?

Probably not the cages, but I would sure expect the pulley wheels to need replacing. And brifters? Yeah, I think they could need replacing. I've a pair of 9 speed Dura Ace brifters that have about 35,000 miles on them and they are very sloppy and not at all crisp in their shifting.

I think you can "future proof" by using BikeWNC's method he discusses in his post. By using a compact double along with a MTB RD you can have gears that are even easier than most standard Triple setups. I've been using that arrangement for several years and it works perfectly. The new 10 sp 11-32 to 12-36' cassettes also allow for a very wide range of gear inches.

Yes, with the latest cassettes and compacts, you can get amazingly low gears. But NOT as low as with a triple, and there will be a penalty in gapping and possibly duplication. You can still get more benefit from a triple. We're talking about being prepared for the future, which the OP sees as having a significant downside, though he doesn't really say why he expects this. A triple setup that allows for very small grannies is the most flexible platform, from a gearing adaptability point of view, given taht he selects and sizes the crankarms to best fit his body.

Keep in mind that with a triple you can do a 20 tooth granny and the 36 tooth rear cog. Now the limitation will get into total chain wrap capability. 40-some teeth wrap might not seem like very much.

With an Impel or similar you can do a 44/36/20, for a 24 inch tooth spread. With an 11 tooth small cassette you will get a 100 inch gear. With the 20 in the front and a 28 in the rear you get Frank Berto's target low gear, 19 inches. So 44/36/20 and 11/28 gets you a wrap requirement of 41 teeth. I think there are a wide range of long-cage derailleurs that can handle this.

If you're a weight-weenie this won't be your cup of tea. But for you avowed goal, it fits the bill. But you still need to fine tune the cassette and chainring selections.

Note I'm not talking about a standard triple but is an available part, at least on Ebay.

By the way, 18gi (eg, 22T-32T) is entirely rideable provided the user is predisposed to a higher-than-mashing cadence.

The OP could easily invest in, say, an Ultegra triple lever set which can be used as a double, and do the compact crank thing. If he then decides that isn't what is required, he can continue on to a triple.

The thing about using larger cassettes is that there is a need to use an MTB derailleur.

As randonneurs and touring cyclists, we have been through this whole process. Machka's bikes have been equipped with MTB cranks (26-36-48) and 11-34 cassettes. My current go-to bike is equipped with Ultegra triple with 11-32 cassette. Both have XT derailleurs.

My touring bike used, for a long time, a 22-32-44 crankset to 11-32 cassette, but now runs a 26-36-48 crankset. I have a 22T chainring to go on it if I am heading to really steep country with a touring load on board.

I've ridden most of my time in hilly terrain, and I have perfectly good knees that I want to keep that way (although I do enjoy riding fixed gear). I honestly cannot see how the OP could entertain riding something like a 34 compact to a 28 cog in 8-12% grades without threatening damage to knees that he already considers at risk.

And brifters? Yeah, I think they could need replacing. I've a pair of 9 speed Dura Ace brifters that have about 35,000 miles on them and they are very sloppy and not at all crisp in their shifting.

Ugh...that probably explains why my Ultegra brifters are starting to suck: 5 years, 40k miles.

Clear back in the late 80s I bought a touring bike with a triple. This was to be my "last" bike. I figured that as I got older I would always have the granny gear to fall back on. It worked well and I was very happy with the set up. Then mountain bikes became really popular so I bought a mountain bike as my "last" bike. So then I had a road bike and a mountain bike. Then after looking at recumbents for years and thinking how logical they were I bought one in 2005. It was fantastic and of course it had a triple. Finally my "last" bike. But then since I have been blessed with great health, when I retired in 2008 I bought my forth "last" bike a Rans Stratus.

Now guess what. Still in great health im thinking about a tadpole trike which I will probably get next year when I have saved enough pennies. The point here is probably a lot of people like me that have bought that last bike. All four of my last bikes did have a triple. The slight increase in weight is good insurance against old age and hills.