roccobike

I started with a triple on a used Cannondale. When I reached the point where I could ride the triple without using the granny gear, I picked up another bike with a double. The only reason my CF Giant has a triple is that's the way it came from the factory. If I ever replace it, I'll go to a double.

clutchy

i'd be shocked if there were many hills a 34x27 couldn't handle. I was blown away by going from a 39x25 for a 34x25. It's almost too easy.

besides that triples lose major style points and it's easier to convert from a standard double to a compact double.

Radix

I'm similar in profile, 44, don't race, but do lot's of charity rides, centuries, and group rides. I love hills, but my old knees & joints don't, so I find spinning with a triple much easier on the body.

What I like about my triple is I know I can face nearly any hill, whether it's Mt. Washington or alpe d'huez, and I can pedal with confidence knowing I can thrive on hills versus suffer...

Velo Dog

OK, this is probably because I don't have any use for a 53-anything much over 17, but I always feel like people who insist they're too strong for a compact double are just showing off. Any time I can turn a 53-12, I'm going to be coasting instead. Wouldn't it be simple and fairly cheap just to buy the bike and slap on new cassette? If you like the bike otherwise, I mean?
But as i say, my Atlantis doesn't even know it HAS a 53-12.

Edonis13

i love my compact with 11-26 cassette. SRAM even makes an 11-28 cassette if i want lower gearing, but i dont feel a need for it.

campaleches

There's a way to go around this compact-triple debate. My next crankset will be an "ultra-compact". Most probably a 44-29. This way I'll have the short gears of a triple for steep climbs, with the clean shifting and lower weight of a double. And on the higher end, a 44x11 is equivalent to a 52x13, plenty enough for me 99.9% of the time.
The only problem IMO is that there are few cranks abailable for such a combo, and most of them are pretty expensive, and to my knowledge all of them are square taper.

pacificaslim

I have that 48-36-26 on my Bianchi Axis which sees both dirt and road riding. I have used the 26 a few times, but not often enough to want to keep it. It basically only comes in handy when climbing loose dirt roads where one must put down the least torque as possible or the rear tire just spins out in the dirt. But I'm going to replace it. I keep looking for a good deal on a compact crankset since it'll give me both a larger chainring and a smaller chainring than my current 48-36. I realize the gear selection will suffer, but...

pacificaslim

I've considered doing the exact same thing. But you're right about there being few cheap solutions. Mountain bikes might be going to doubles up front in the future if the introduction of SRAM's top of the line XX crankset is any indication. Those cranks are like $430 (come in 42-28 or 39-26). But if they become popular and other makers (err...shimano) go to ten speed cassettes and doubles up front for their mtb lines, we'll have lots of cheaper options. Kind of bulky styling on the arms for road bikes though...

cyccommute 

Go run the numbers on Sheldon Brown's gear calculator. I was very surprised at how bad the gear combinations were on a compact. You could just not use the 26 on your Axis or even remove it. An 11 tooth cassette gives you a very nice high gear with a 48 tooth chainring and your other ratios are more usable.

Caad 8

+1

joejack951

https://www.universalcycles.com/shopp...ls.php?id=1806

joejack951

Grow older, gain weight, ride longer, ride up steeper hills, carry more gear, etc. and you'll find a use for lower gearing.

Retro Grouch 

That's pretty much it. Assuming both cranksets take the same bottom bracket, you'll need a longer chain to safely cover the new 53/?? combination and raise the front derailleur a few millimeters.

SMH707

I don't understand this comment since the 48-36 without the 26 is the same as a compact. I'm running a 50-36 Rival right now and could easily place a 48 x 110mm ring on if I didn't want the 50 for certain rides. If the hills are too steep for too long, I can always put my 34 tooth ring on and even add the 11-28 SRAM cassette--there's nothing *I* can't get up with the 34-28 combo.

To the OP:

I rode a triple most of last year (with a 8 speed rear), then switched my whole group over to '09 Rival this past winter. I started using the 50-34 that came on the compact along with a 12-26 cassette. It worked great: my only complaint was that I could only run down to the to the 13 tooth cog when in the 34 ring, which didn't make the 34 ring very useful (felt like I was 'spinning' so fast that I was always going 'nowhere' and getting there very fast!). I ended up riding and climbing in the 50 ring almost all the time-except for the steepest and/or longest hills. I thought I'd solve this by going to the 50-36 combo. Problem solved-almost-until about mid July of this year when I got even stronger and thought I had 'outgrown' my compact altogether and ordered the same crank (Rival) in a standard 53-39. At first I liked it, but later I decided the 39 ring just didn't get me low enough for some climbs (Blue Mound, 3+ mile climb, averaging 10% for the first mile and finishing the last 1/2 mile or so at an average of 17%)-forcing me to stand and be less efficient climbing (I've never had to walk up a hill yet-I'm hoping to keep that record up).

Anyway, I decided to go back to the 50-36 combo and replace the 12-26 with an 11-27 cassette. So I lost the '16' in the middle, but gained the '12' for the smallest cog I can shift to while in the 36 up front. Now I can ride up to 26+ mph with a cadence around 105 rpm. This combo has given me the 'best' of both worlds: the 17-27 portion of the cassette gets me a compact I can climb anything with--while staying seated so I'm more efficient, while the 15-11 gets me the same gearing as the standard did from 16-12. Now I literally feel like I switch from the compact to a standard crank when I shift from the 17 down to the 15. On the top end, the 50-11 gearing spins out at about 45+ mph-faster than the 53-12 combo when I was using that. If I decide I want a little more spread, I'll go with a 52 tooth ring (SRAM is bringing out a 52 tooth and 38 tooth ring for the 2010 Force group so those rings should be available in the spring in 110 BCD).

I REALLY like this combo and am planning to stick with it through next season--but I can easily switch between the compact and the standard in a little less than an hour when I want. I made the switch back to the compact as I realized that the chainring options available give me all the flexibility I could possibly need...

That's my experience, first hand. I personally would never go back to a triple: don't need it, don't like the shifting, don't like the way it looks on my bike, don't want the extra weight--all my opinion. The options / combos available in 110 bcd along with the various cassettes available can give you as 'tight' of a grouping or as 'wide' of a grouping of gearing options as one could possibly want.

Oh, btw, you can't 'easily' swap between a triple and double crank as you have to have a 'triple' front shifter and the front derailleur may or may not work for both...

For context: I'm a second year rider weighing 132 lbs coming from a lifting background (lots of fast twitch fibers, and I fluctuate between 4% - 6% bodyfat), have about 4000 miles in this season, and have begun to really enjoy climbing. I say this just so you can 'see' who's giving you their experience (or lack thereof) and not trying to pretend I'm someone I'm not...

socalrider

Agreed with what is said above.. For my cross bilke, I set it up with a 48-38-24 ring setup so I can climb all the local trails that I normally do with m MTB..

Hot Potato

Not the least bit of showing off here mate. I am so sad, I can spend days and days on the 39 ring where I live. I never need a granny ring because it is so flat, and am too weak to make a 53 worthwhile. It just so happens that the only way to get a 39 ring OEM is a triple or a standard double. Since I have already established that a triple isn't ever required, a standard double it is, without any bragging or posing. Hell, I could omit the front dérailleur completely to save money if I were building from scratch. Get it? The allure of the standard double is to get the 39 ring, not any claim to fame. Sure I can get a 39 with a triple, but I won't need it where I live. It is not needing anything less than a 39 where I ride that I am addressing, not my need for a 53.

As for a new cassette, I have pondered that. Tighter spacing might make for some optimized spinning and mashing. However, a compact double does require a front shift around the 18 mph mark? The 18 to 22 mph mark is where I cruise, and some hills I am down to just 14mph. If I were running a compact double, I have to shift the front frequently. If I have a 39 ring, I am good for everything except all out speed with a group. Again, this is a function of my local terrain, not my lower extremities.

SMH707

I'm sure you know this already, but you can get a 38 or 39 tooth ring in 110 to combine with a 50 (or a 50 in 130 bcd). There really is a big difference between the 50 and 53 in my experience--you may want to give it a shot.

I know what you're talking about regarding how flat the Chicago area is. I'm further west and ride in the Beloit / Janesville / Brodhead area all the time (lots of rolling hills, 10 - 12 % on many of them). I've also been seeking out rides like the Dairyland Dare and HHH west of Madison so I really like having the option of anything from 33 - 40 teeth for my small front ring...

Also, with '09 Rival I can get 9 of my 10 cogs with the small ring up front: the 36-12 combo (using an 11-27 cassette) gets me up to 26+ mph before 'needing' to shift up to the 50 ring up front...

If I was always riding the 'flats' of Ill, I might stay with the 53/39 also, but now that I've seen the flexibility a 36 ring gives me with a 11-27 cassette, I think I'd stay with that anyways.

oldpedalpusher

Triples can have style, too...




You can hardly tell there's a 21 tooth granny gear in there. It allows a tiny lightweight corncob cassette and a one to one low gear.

Jinker

I went from a 50-40-30 9-speed (12-25) to a 50-34 with an 11-26 cassette. My new low gear is 9% higher than before. My new high gear is 9% higher. I have the exact same spread of gearing available to me, just shifted up the range slightly. Though I've gotta say, I don't really care about the high gear.

I find the 34x26 low enough for any of the local hills. As for usable ranges, I find myself shifting rings far less often. Usually at the base of a climb I drop it into the 34, and as I crest it and accelerate I shift up to the big ring. I can use far more of the cassette without worrying about trimming than I could on my triple.

The double just shifts more nicely than the triple as well.

I love it.

All that being said, we don't have monster hills in my neck of the woods, nor are many of my rides more than 2 or 3 hours.

umd

Style points go to standard... with a 42.

umd

So anyone who is stronger than you is just showing off... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

daven1986

I'm going for a triple (probably 28/38/48) on an 11-25 on my new build because when I'm on my compact (39/50) on an 11-28 cassette it always feels like I need just one more lower gear and I also don't like the jumps in shifting.

Mhendricks

My Campy Record Triple is set up as 50/40/26 and I save my knees at my age (54)

Herbie53

Haven't had a triple, besides on an MTB, but have gone back and forth between standard and compact. Set on standard with a 50/39 combo and an 11/27 cassette at this point.

Better front shifting and less of it, and less cross chaining than the compact. 39/27 is plenty low for me until the grade goes past ~9% for more than a mile.

Beaker

The OP has provided next to no information about how you might make this choice in terms of riding other than your age and that you don't race and also haven't come back to comment on the "can of worms". Did you just open up another BF troll thread?