bjoerges

I'm going to be buying a Trek 2.1 pretty soon and with the EP deal I get the price difference between the Compact and the Triple is right about $25 more for the T. I'm wondering if the extended gearing range is worth the relatively small weight penalty and additional complexity. Obviously, this isn't a super-light race bike, but I would like to get as good of performance as possible since this will be what leads me into a full carbon top-end bike in about 2 years.

I plan to be doing lots of century rides that have been known to go through some very hilly areas as well as doing a little bit of commuting (will be converting my SS commuter back to a 1x9 and mostly using that for commutes though).

Any opinions on Compact (50/34 x 11-26) vs. Triple (50/39/30 x 11-26)?

Retro Grouch 

My advice is always the same: If you have to ask get the triple.

umd

Oh yes, there are quite a few opinions on the matter.

Ahall14

Based on the info provided and my personal experience...Get a compact. A 34 x 26 should have you spinning pretty easily up most hills. And you could always change your cassette at some point and add a 27 or 28. IMO.

flatlander_48

I originally spec'ed my bike with a 53/39 crank and a 12/25 cassette. This worked reasonably well for the flat and moderate hills. However, with fairly steep hills my cadence got so slow that falling over while clipped in became a concern. I then replaced the crank with a 53/42/30 and that took care of 80% to 90% of the problem.

umd

What about the other 10%-20%?

Carbon Unit

If you are going with a triple, consider the 53/42/30 since it gives you a wider range. The only down side I can see to a triple is that it weights probably 100 grams more than the compact. With the 53/42/30, you will have a larger range than a compact.

I have a 53/42/30 triple, but if I were buying a new bike I would probably go compact just because I have become stronger on the hills and have less needs for the small chain ring.

knobster

A triple is a standard double with a extra granny gear. A compact double is much different and I've found that I have to shift much more in the front than I would on a double or triple. Like someone else said, if you're asking this question, you're probably better off with the triple. If you never use the granny, no problem. It's there when you do need it.

tntyz

I got the triple on my 2008 Trek Madone 4.5. Help me validate my decision and get the triple!

Seriously, there are plenty of days when I need that bottom range of gears. Spring winds with hills can really be a bear at times. The triple lets me keep in a desired HR on my recovery rides. But I'm 52 and looking to ride for recreation. There's no racing in my future.

I'm in the big ring plenty of times, but don't top out very often. So there's enough high end for me in the triple, too.

Do a search and you'll find there's quite a few good discussions on this topic. There are plenty of arguments on both sides of the issue. Figure out what's important to you and go with it.

Carbon Unit

One thing I like about my 53/42/30 triple, is that 90% of the time I can just use the 42 and never really need to shift into the small or large chain ring. Mostly I use the large chain ring going down hills.

umd

And the q-factor is wider, and the chainline sucks in more gear combinations, and it's harder to get it shifting well over the entire range.

As you noted, however, it makes some sense to get a larger big ring as the higher top-end of a triple is one of the touted advantages over a compact and having a 50 negates that. I should point out that putting a 26 on the back with a 30 in front is only slightly lower than a 28 on the back with a 34 up front...

I've done the triple -> compact -> standard myself and my wife has done the triple -> compact as well.

Carbon Unit

I called Campagnolo and they told me the Q factor was the same as their standard crankset. I haven't had any problems shifting. I had a standard double before going to the triple and I don't notice any difference on the rear shifting. The front Dr. is probably a little slower but not really a problem.

Randochap

Encore!

My three bits.

Bostic

It's not. I have their current UT double cranks (Chorus Carbon, Centaur Alloy) which are 145.5mm and a 2006 Record Triple which is wider than that. Based on the spacing of one more ring, no matter it's size, it's going to be wider. If not my knees telling me so, the visual spacing of how much more the Polar cadence sensor sticks out to reach the magnet on the left crank arm make it apparent.

I've done a lot of riding on triples and compacts and ultimately made some changes to keep from getting dropped on faster rides. I ditched the 34 for a 36 on the compacts (carbon bike, carbon/steel bike) and the triple bike (Steel) now has a regular 53/39 instead of 53/42/30. I weighed the various components and the triple setup was roughly 115 grams heavier. I never noticed it on the flats or climbs up to 10% but out of the saddle on ugly grades is where I felt the lag of the weight at the bottom bracket.

thirdin77

Are your hilly rides going to be rolling hills or longer, steeper hills?

I think that longer hills will make the lower 30x27 gear more beneficial, as having that one lower gear, even if it's only about three gear inches shorter than a 34x27, is enough to noticeably increase my endurance and ability to pace myself. YMMV.

With shorter, rolling hills, though, in which a climb is not as long and therefore not as taxing, you can more easily get away with the 34x27 or a higher gear in general. As well, transitioning between only two rings rather than three is nice on rollers. If most of my riding was on rollers, I would go to a compact.

Of course this advice is from one newb to another. I think that neither of us want to or can use a standard double and "corn cob" cassette that many use, at least, not right now.

Tapeworm21

I started road riding on a 53/39. HTFU.

Triples shift like garbage, compacts shift nicely. Triples are loud and obnoxious, compacts are lots quieter. Triples are fred status, compacts are still fred. Triples make your stance wider, compacts make it narrower.

If you are EPing stuff, you either work at a shop or on a team. Nobody races on a triple, and most shop employees know better.

Carbon Unit

Which triple are you using because my Campy triple shifts exactly the same as my Campy standard double and it isn't any louder? I don't hear it at all and the people that ride with me don't hear it either. The bottom bracket on a triple is an .125" wider than a standard. So divide than in half at that is how much wider you stance would be. About 1/16" on each side. I don't think you would even notice that since the cleats can be adjusted more than that.

Nobody races on triple because competitive athletes don't need them. However, the world is full of people that are not competitive athletes.

ericm979

I'm a racer who hasn't had a triple equipped bike for a while. But if you are doing "very hilly" rides, get the triple. If you find that you don't need it, you can switch to a double (compact or regular) with only a crank and front derailleur change. If you get a double and then decide that you need the triple, you have to buy new shifters (the most expensive component), front and rear derailleurs, and a crank. It's much more expensive to go double->triple than the reverse.

If you are not racing there's nothing wrong with a triple. They are great for century rides.... no worries about steep hills at the end of the ride. A well set up triple shifts just about as well as a double.

Last, if you are competing, it's who gets up the hill first that counts, not which gear you use to do it.

FreddyV

If the difference is only $25, go for the triple. I ride a triple too, but actually never use the smallest chainring. Might come in handy though, when I ever happen to be around the Alpe d'Huez

merlinextraligh

There are a lot of arguments back and forth, but to me the bottom line is:

If you need a gear lower than 34/28, get a triple; If 34/27 or 34/28 will be low enough for your fitness and terrain, get the compact.

umd

Well said

btw, I'm keeping an eye on the SRAM XX stuff for EC this year

Carbon Unit

I just got off the phone with Marty from Campagnolo in Carlsbad, California. All Campy cranksets have the same Q factor. He is looking for something on his website that he can send me and I will follow up by posting it.

He also said that Campagnolo is getting away from triples. They will continue to make them but they will not be putting any resources into improving them like they are the compacts and doubles.

RoboCheme

I switched from a triple to a compact double. I much prefer the double because I'm shifting the FD a lot less. I also switched from a 12-25 to a 11-28 to get the same gear coverage.

BlazingPedals

There's nothing in Michigan that can't be handled with a 39/53. Compacts are for poseurs who need a lower low gear and are so vain they're willing to give up a gear or two on top to avoid having a triple on their bike. Q? Chainline? Shifting? All smoke. And a 30/34 is way lower than a 34/28. HTFU or go the Full Monty and get the triple.

Flame suit on!

TVS_SS

well i just picked up a 2009 Trek 2.1 a few days ago with the Compact....

so i guess my review isnt worth much as i've only put a few miles on it, but my reasoning was "this is michigan not colorado"

Edit: i just got it from a LBS in Royal oak... wow, small world.