DaveSS wrote:

"If the same range of gearing is provided with a triple, the cassette can have closer cog spacing than a compact. That should be obvious."

OK, that's obvious.

It should also be obvious that a compact doesn't have to have the same range as a triple. In fact, the reason for the existence of a compact is that it compacts, at both ends, the range of gears compared to a triple. So comparing a compact and a triple with different cassettes is like mixing apples and oranges.

"The compact does have a tiny bit of extra top gear"

Again, apples and oranges. This assumes cassettes are different on the triple and the compact. It's just as easy to assume the cassettes are the same.


"The triple's cassette has seven 1-tooth shifts, compared to four with the compact's cassette"

Which is why I questioned Peter2's claim that a compact is "simpler" than a triple. It's not. The hoary claim that shifting on a double is faster or crisper than on a triple is wrong, because of all the extra shifting required when switching from one chainring to another on a compact.