Originally Posted by
redfishpaddler
COMPACT VS. TRIPLE
I have had triples on two recumbents and a Softride Solo. I have been told by bike salesfolks that the newer compacts essentially are equivalent to the triples, offering easier shifting and less 'tuning in'. When I road regularly, I rarely used the smallest ring but knew it was always there if I needed it. I understand that most compact cranks provide a 20 gear bike. I live in Western CT with many hills. I am leaning towards another triple. What are your experiences with these two options?
Find a new salesman, or ignore the marketing hype and decide on your own. Here are some thoughts on triple vs compact.
Compacts shift better
I don't see this as being true. When properly adjusted, a triple shifts just as well as a double. In fact, since the difference between the rings is smaller, a triple should actually shift better than the typically large range between the rings on a compact.
Compact is lighter
If it is, it's only by a few ounces. It's doubtful that anyone who would consider a triple is going to notice a few ounces one way or another.
Triples aren't cool
Neither are knee problems caused by mashing too large a gear up a hill. Which is better, to choose the right equipment for one's needs, or to worry about making a fashion statement?
Compacts provide essentially the same gearing
This one is flat out wrong. There is no way 20 gears can provide the same gearing as 30. Given the same cassette on the rear, they don't even provide the same range.
I chose a triple after doing extensive comparisons with compacts and standard doubles. I used
Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator to build tables showing MPH at an 80 and 90 RPM cadence (I can comprehend speed at a certain cadence, gear inches is too esoteric for me) for each of the alternatives. I found I could get much finer control of my cadence with a triple. This was largely due to being able to use a cassette with a tighter range. For example, on a compact if I chose a 12x25, I could go 8.5 MPH at 80 RPM. On a triple, I can use a 12x23 and go 8.2 MPH at 80 RPM. This difference matters because I like to spin, less stress on my knees, and I like to be able to shift in small increments to stay in my target cadence.
Another interesting shifting difference will come up when you shift rings. The large ring difference on the compact means you will have to shift the rear quite a few gears to compensate for shifting rings, for example when you've been rolling along in the big ring and you shift to the small one because you're about to go up a hill. The tighter spacing of the rings on a triple significantly reduces the number of rear shifts that will be needed as a result of a ring change.
Yet another difference has to do with riding in an area with rolling hills. The big ring on a compact may be too big for going up the hills, while the small ring is too small for going down the hills. The result can be frequent shifting between the rings, which as I pointed out above, adds many shifts in the rear. In contrast, the middle ring on a triple is of a size where it's much more likely to be suitable for going up and down the rollers, without having to change rings at all.
IS CARBON WORTH IT?
I keep reading how incredibly more comfortable a full carbon frame is. I have ridden aluminum recumbent frames with pudgy tires and very comfy seats. I am now far more concerned with the frame, stems, fork materials.
There are a huge number of steel frames out there that are supposed to be extremely comfortable, reasonably priced, remarkably light, and have none of the longevity concerns, such as hidden frame damage after a crash, that I've seen expressed about carbon.