hotcore

I'm returning to road riding after 15 years. I have been riding a bike in the interim, but over short distances commuting, going on errands and on fun, casual rides.

I'm wondering what the best gear setup will be for me, returning to longer road rides: a compact double or triple?

Most road bikes this year are being spec'ed with a 50/34 double and either 12-28, 12-30 or 12-32 cluster.

In the past 3 or 4 or 5 seasons, it seems that 50/39/30 triples were also spec'ed, with a variety of low gears, ranging from 25-30.

I looked at the gear chart for the compact double combinations I listed above and they seem to yield a very nice gear chart, with just a slight overlap at the low end of the 50 ring and high end of the 34 ring. So, minimal redundancy, and a little less weight and mechanical complexity.

The triple would give me the option to spin in either a 39 or 30 chainring as I saw fit. Problem being, few bikes this season are spec'ed with a triple.

Regardless of the availability issue, which setup would be better for a returning rider: double or triple? Thanks all!

mcmoose

This topic tends to generate a lot of discussion. I think a lot depends on the terrain you'll be riding and your fitness level. I live in a hilly area (SF Bay area). I've still a ways on go on the fitness scale. Hence, I love my triple. Folks in great shape living in a flat region find triples to be a waste of weight and added complexity.

I think the best approach is to test ride on the steepest hills you anticipate riding. Can you comfortably climb them with the "granny gear" of the bike? If so, you've got a gear set that should work for you. (Both the compacts and triples that I looked at had 50-tooth big sprockets, so top gear wasn't an issue.)

In any case, welcome back to road riding... have fun!

zandoval 

If you have a bailout gear out back then a compact crank is all you need - If I start running out of gas at a 1:1 ratio on my bike its time for the Size 12 HomoErectus gear...

stephtu

IMO overlap/redundancy is a good thing. You aren't forced to change chainrings quite as often. The 39 is a useful size covering a lot of typical cycling speeds, you get the flat/rolling hills advantages of a standard crank but still have a ring for the really steep stuff. With a triple you can get either the same range as a compact, but tighter jumps on the rear cluster, or you can get a wider range if you need it. Death of triples seems driven by desire of manufacturers/shops for fewer models to stock. And maybe there is a segment of riders shamed by having a granny gear (see the "granny gear no shame" thread for the other side), but if you have compact & a large big cog it amounts to the same thing.

A compact is workable, I wouldn't stop it from buying a particular model if I like it a lot better in other respects , but if it was a tossup between a couple bikes I'd get the triple if one had it and the other didn't.

Digitalfiend

I run a 46/34 w/ 12-30 cassette on my CX bike and that lets me tackle the few 15-18% grades we have around here at a comfortable cadence; the much more common (and longer) 8-10% hills are much easier with that gearing than the 39/25 on my road bike.

Originally, I ran a 50/34 w/11-25 on my road bike but *hated* the constant double-triple shift in the rear when switching rings up front. The constant shuffling was really annoying but I live in a very hilly area where you find yourself frequently changing front rings because of the constant climbing/descending. After my first year on the 50/34, I changed to 53/39 (and 11/12-27.) But to answer your question, I'd probably go with a 50/34 and an 11-28 cassette over a triple. That should get you up most short to moderately long (but steep) hills at a comfortable cadence. I wouldn't bother with a triple, too cumbersome and clunky in my experience (granted that experience being with cheap mountain bikes but still... )

chaadster

I'm sorry, but what's the argument against a triple? Mechanical complexity? Clunkiness? Come on now, because I think that's a load of BS. I don't have one-- I run standard 53/39-- but a guy I ride with has a beautiful Athena triple, and I've never heard a peep from him about any downside, and besides that, those complaints just don't sound reasonable. I mean what's really mor complex about a little more FD cage range given the range possible from a RD? Or a third click on a fS when a rear has 11 clicks? MTB triples work fine, but road setups are clunky? Not buying that at all.

My take on it is that if you're not doing loading touring, you don't need a triple for anything. Even if you're heavy, weak, unfit, and not an aggressive rider, a compact with a wide range cassette will get you up a lot of hills. That being said, if you're really averse to route planning, or have the unfortunate combo of being heavy, unfit, weak, non-aggressive, and live in the mountains, then just get a triple. You'll be fine, and apparently some may think you even earn a Boy Scout badge for braving Mechanical Complexity!

cplager

There are no (real) downsides to a triple (except possibly Q factor for a very small group of people).

With a triple you can have both range and closely spaced shifts. My 50/39/24 is basically a double with a bail out gear. You may not need it much, but it's great to have it there.

LansingWes

The FD can be a PITA to adjust properly. That said, I still love my triple.

fstshrk

This completely depends on the weight you are hauling and the grade. My commuter bike is heavy and with my clothes/work gear etc, I am pushing 45-48 lbs. And I climb two 11-13% climbs on my way home. Needless to say, the triple with the 11-34 cassette comes in handy especially on an off day.

fstshrk

True, but once you get it tuned, it stays adjusted for a LONG time. I don't think I touched mine in years. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the rear derailleur.

hotcore

I think having the option to spin in either a 39 or 30 is preferable to having the 34 only. A triple would be my first choice for a variety of reasons.

Does anyone know of manuf. this year who are spec'ing triples? Specialized, Trek and Felt are on my short list, but none of them have spec triples for tiagra/105 level bikes.

mcmoose

Yeah, Trek's line-up is, um, interesting. They offer a Triple 105 for the WSD Domane 4.3 and their Lexa XLS (which is basically their Alum Domane for women); they don't offer the 105 Triple for the men's (unisex?) models.

Also interesting, they stopped offering Triple models for the lower Lexas. That's the main reason I bought a 2013 Lexa S (well, that and the fact that it was on sale).

Good hunting!

gsa103

Finicky front derailluer alignment on a triple. It never shifts quite as smoothly and consistently as a double. The advantage is that the jumps between rings are smaller. SRAM doesn't make a triple setup at all (road or mountain), and that's actually putting a lot of pressure on Shimano to justify continuing to have triples at all.

Gear range is mainly set by the take-up of the rear derailluer not the crank type. On road bike with shorter (mid) cage derailluers, there isn't much difference in gear range between a compact an a triple.
For the most part, a triple typically has one gear below a compact double with a wide range cassette. The main thing you get with a triple is usually a ton of useless top-end gears.

Shimano is dropping triples from 105 and higher groupsets in favor of compact doubles.

cplager

My triples shift flawlessly. Both my 48/38/22 and my 50/39/24. If your didn't, it sounds like your mechanic didn't do his job correctly.

The fact that Shimano is dropping triples has little to do with how triples perform and lots to do with marketing.

As far as "lots of useless to end gears," just because you don't ride your bike at speed doesn't mean that others don't as well.

If you want both range and close spacing, it's difficult to beat a triple.

stephtu

Sure they do, the non-WSD Domane 4.3 is available with either compact or triple. The Domane 2.0 aluminum is available with Tiagra triple. Unfortunately, triple selection has really diminished in recent years, many manufacturers don't offer it at all. Can find a leftover from an earlier model year sometimes.

Compacts can get similar range to a triple, but at the expense of cog spacing, and that ponderous double shift with multiple rear cogs in that transition zone around 18 mph or so. I haven't had any issues with front derailleur adjustment or function.

hotcore

I agree with all of this. Personally, I think triples look really cool on a road bike.

Mtn bikes are moving towards double and now even SINGLE chainrings. I really wish manuf. would give consumers (more of) a choice.

Thanks for the rec! I'll have to inquire.

mcmoose

I stand (well, sit) corrected about the Domane 4.3 and 2.0. And yet the Domane 2.3 Alum doesn't offer the 105 in a triple; I can't figure out the logic.

Good advice about triples!

zymphad

Double for me.

Dudelsack 

Triple if you're up in years.

MikeEckhaus

I have a 52 42 30 older Ultegra triple. It's really sweet to run super close gears up to about the 22 mph range, so anything from a false uphill flat to actually flat can be run with no more than a one tooth change when in the 42 up front. Then I have climbing gears for anything SoCal can throw at me.

My my new bike will have a compact 11 sp, mostly because that's what you can get these days in an Ultegra, but the triple is still a sweet combo.

Drew Eckhardt 

Standard double if you can spin 39x21 (10 cogs 11 starting), 39x23 (10 cogs 12 starting 11 cogs 11 first position), or 39x25/26 (10 cogs 13 starting, 11 cogs 12 starting) up the majority of your hills and enjoy the rest.

Triple otherwise. Just because they come with a big cassette or 30 small ring doesn't mean that's what you have to ride. I liked 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 in the 8 cog era - low like 42x28 for mountains, straight block for plains rides, no need to get the group to plan ahead on where we were riding for a pre-emptive cassette change (or riding to the ride with chain whip, 1" wrench, cassette tool, and spare cassette in a jersey pocket).

Compacts can sometimes provide similar range (you get one gear lower than a standard double with the same cassette) to some triple setups but make for more front shifting (the same cassette acts like one with a starting cog 2 teeth bigger on a standard double, 3 compared to a triple where the centered chainline means you don't eschew 39 x small cog) and may have bigger jumps between cogs.

OTOH, if you've put on a lot of weight with middle age you'd need to scale up the cogs by a 34/24 ratio (ex: 24x28 is like 34x40) to get compact gearing like a triple which becomes impractical or means cassettes like 11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25-28-34 where most roadies seem to dislike a 15-17 jump.

zymphad

For newish rider? Compact with 12-25. That has smooth gearing and should accomodate most needs for hills etc, I would think.

- Compact will cover the range you need. Triple or double is personal preference. But for a new rider, less is probably more. Maybe some like shifting the FD a lot, I don't. I try to stay on the 50 as much as possible. And FD shifting is terrible, unless you have a 6800 and above I'm told. My 105 FD shifting isn't where I would want to be shifting 3 chainrings. 2 is already too many. If I could have perfect strong legs and 50 combo with cassette, I wouldn't even have a double.

- 12-25 provides smooth shifting and gives you great options on the cogs you will most likely be using. And unless you're climbing a mountain, you may not need a 34/28. I can't guess where you are riding and your ability. I'm dropping my 11-28 for a 12-25 soon for this reason. There are no mountains to climb and I'm not going to be pedaling 80-100 on a 50-11. Just not happening.

Some BikeForums members really like to mock the bigger cogs and compact cranks, but they aren't winning TdF either.

cplager

I really don't understand this advice. To me, "newish" means somebody who isn't yet in shape. So you think a 34/25 is the lowest that anybody would ever need?

Not only that, newer riders are much less likely to complain about the the steps between cassettes being to big.

So, my advice would be, ummm, not this.

zymphad

I did say it's difficult to guess his ability and what terrain he was riding. I know my 28 hasn't been used at all on this new frame I've put it on cause there aren't any hills around for it. And I disagree about the steps between cassettes, you don't have to be a good rider to notice it.

Null66

I have a 22,32,44 with 11/32 set up. No hill too steep, no pack too heavy.

My SO has a compact with 11-34. Her's doesn't go quite low enough for some hills with some packs...

All this about FD's not shifting well, is well, hooey. I'm not a good mechanic and mine works just fine, oh, and it's tiagra STI with tiagra FD...