As a last pitch for triples, compact doubles should theoretically have a shorter chain and chain ring life span.

Explain you theory please?

Ah, but the question is "was the bail out for pain tolerance" better for the knees and if not today (when they might be younger) than later when they have been pressed into too much service on too many steeper hills. I am not a physiologist but I don't think that I can "force my knees which are between pretty powerful thighs and damn powerful calves to train any harder." Yes, I can get up some of our hills without the triple but not without making the knees painfully aware of that effort.

Of course, the original poster has to decide what kind of hills (or not) they may encounter in the near future. Frankly, what I don't understand is why they equip bikes with triples that are not quite granny enough for real hills. I've changed the 30 for a 26 on my Madone. That goes with the 27 rear and my left knee would like lower still.

I'm sure some strong folks can climb nearly anything and have been doing it for a long time but how many are still pedaling years and years or decades later.

I don't think that a 3rd choice up front complicates matters much. I generally reserve it for steeper climbs and it does not require that much mental exertion (G)

I love my triple. I don't use the small ring much but there's been some times in the hills where I just bonked huge and was so glad I had it to idle around in until I could get some energy back again.

Sorry, I was running out the door when I posted that.

On a compact drive, for higher speed gears you will tend to run a smaller chain ring in front than you would on a standard double or triple (because that is all you have) and a small cog on the back for the same amount of gear inches you could get with a larger chain ring and larger sprocket on a traditional crank. I figure less teeth up front and back for speed means the stress of the drive is distributed across on fewer teeth. I would think that would lead to more wear.

instead of a compact, wouldn't it be more cheaper and effecient to just get either a 11X34 or 11/28 rear cassette to match with the existing 53/39?

i'm in the process of deciding whether to go with compact or stay with 53/39 and swap out rear cassette. my problem is i ride @ chicago (flat) but do high mountain trips in europe. i don't want a triple; i hear too many bad things about shifting problems. 27 on the back with 39 in the front on 8%+ 20K+ climbs is a labor for me; i think compact would give me many more options in swapping out the rear cassette, but i do worry about top end speed with a 50 in the front on the flats/descents. haven't yet tried a compact -- who has; what's your experience under varied situations? thx.

.

You're right their.It's a bit of pain to get the front derailler adjusted correctly.
I think the problem with the tripple is the small ring,the jump (gap) up to mid ring is big which can cause it to slip back down.

My r1000 has a triple, it's great for recovery days cause i really can spin the pedals the way you're supposed to on off days. Other then that i limit the front derailleur on Race day to make sure it doesn't drop by accident. I would have prefered the bike came with hollowgram double but.... ya get what ya get when sale's are on...

Well the problem with that is then you have huge jumps between cassette cogs. So you're on the flat and need a 53x16, but your choices are 53x15 (too tough) or 53x18 (waaay too easy).

I'd rather run a triple with an 11-21 and have tight gear spacing and use the granny more often. Although I'd probably still like a compact better.

Here we go again:
53-39 Double
50-34 Compact
The Double gives you a 1.8mph advantage at the top end. With the compact you lose a gear on the top end, gain two gears on the low end.

You can also find compacts with 52-36, 50-36, 48-36, 46-34 rings to fine tune your gearing to your terrain/fitness. Back in the 70's, 52-42 compacts were common.

That's done a lot with touring bikes; put a mountain cassette and rear derailleur on a road double or triple. Spacing is pretty wide, though, with a big jump to that 34 granny cog.

You can get 12-27 Shimano cassettes and Campy has one that goes to 28 or you can make your own custom cassette. I've considered getting the 12-27 when my 12-25 wears out if I'm still struggling up some of these climbs around here.

Actually you can get Campy cassettes up through 13-29. The next largest cog they have is 26, as far as I know.

i was also worried about the spacing as well. looks like it's either gonna be a 12-27 or a compact up front.

campy 13-29??? would that work with ultegra 9sp RD & shimano 9sp chain?

Not sure if it would work but the gruppo police would have you stoned in the village square for mixing like that.;)

bbattle.. lol... i ride too slow so getting stoned by them may actually happen...lol

i'll probably just go 12-27 instead.. now just need to find a place where i can find a cheap set of 12-27. do you know if there is any difference between the 105 vs. ultegra's 9sp 12-27?

does climbing to onyx or mount wilson count as a mountain or a hill? cuz i most certainly use my baby gear... errrr... granny gear when i climb them! (and i MOST CERTAINLY used it on decker and stunt road last weekend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Mt Wilson is definitely a big mountain, but I know a few who think it's just a hill and ride like it is...:D
I would definitely use the granny if I had one, but for now I must somewhat suffer with my compact ring whenever going up that mountain.

I used to ride a triple. Loved the 42T, never used the 30T, and barely ever used the 52T.

Just switched to a compact double and love it. I got the bike with a 50/34, and now am fine tuning it. I had an 11/23 cassette on it. Never used the 11T, and the 34T ring was just a bit too small. I ordered two new rings for the front and am swapping out my cassette. After all my riding and reseach I figured out the best setup for me. 48/36 with a 12/23. I cant wait until the parts come in at the end of the week! Ill have plenty of top end speed, an easy enough low gear, and plenty of gears to cruise in that wont hurt my knees. Ill post some feedback after I put a few miles on.

I am lucky to have a good LBS. They are swapping out the cassette for free, and not charging me any labor to change the front rings or the cassette. They were very helpfull to me when making the selection, comparing all the gear inches on the spreadsheet for me. I already did all the research, but it was nice that they were trying to help me out rather than just make a sale. I bought the bike from them over a month ago, and they still dont mind swapping out the cassette. Good stuff.

Please keep us posted on how that works out for you. Sounds interesting.

Actually the compact setup preceeds MT bikes. What I can not understand is why did the mfgs. thought it was not a good thing for road bikes? Now it is back in style.

I just finished a little 13 mile loop with three steep hills, not long about quarter mile each, on a compact 50-34/12-26. I have done this loop with both standard double and triple setups. Two comments: the hills were easier but still work and what I really liked was that some of the lesser hills I could take in the 50 ring at greater speed. I can nor wait to try this bike on the real hill route where I hit 180 bpm on the heart rate monitor at the top on a double.

If your ride is the flatlands only then why bother with a triple or even a compact. As to the extra weight of the triple, to read some of the comments you would think the granny ring only came in some kind of lead alloy. Not an issue, for most. When riding with a triple I use the gears avilable and have never experienced the shifting problems mentioned.

I cannot imagine any real drawback to having a triple. The extra weight is basically nothing, and I don't know how people can possibly have problems shifting. My front derailleur either shifts the front ring "up" or "down", so I don't know how that can be confusing. The only drawback I can imagine is the image.

Some people obviously don't need a triple; fine. But for me, even though I have gotten strong enough to go up most grades in the middle ring at slower RPMs, the triple also gives me the option of going up those same grades at a higher RPM. It also gives me the option of trying any long or steep grade around, because I know that however steep the grade is, I can probably handle it in the 30-26 if necessary. So having a triple gives me many more climbing options than I would if I only had a double, compact or otherwise.

I can understand people buying a double from the outset if they don't need the extra ring. But I can't understand people feeling compelled to go to great lengths to avoid having a triple, like trying a bunch of different rear cogs (11-23, or 12-26, or 13-27).

Choosing a double because a double is what you need makes sense; going out of your way to make a double "work" out of fear to be seen riding a triple does not.

may i ask what do you plan on doing with the original 50/34T? this might be a noob questions.. but do you know if those will fit on the ultegra double crank?

My 1993 Trek 2100 came stock with a "compact" crankset. I believe it's a 48/38....

If you ride a double and believe a triple is to heavy; hard to mantain; difficult to operate; then shouldn't you take your own advice and get a single?