I moved from a triple to a compact double this brevet season. I found I rarely touched the "little" ring on the standard triple. (52,42,30). I moved to a standard compact (50,34) and enjoyed the rest of the season. Upon building my new distance and light touring bike I debated and debated if I should go with a triple. I decided on a TA Carmina double, in 94 bcd. I currently have a "standard" set of compact rings on it - 50,34 and am running a Campy 13-29 cassette. The bike was designed for distance and light touring - and I live in the green mountain state - my favorite loop rides take me over several gaps and lots of "climby" terrain. The Carmina will allow me to use an inner ring as small as 30 - so should I tour, I'll change rings. I have a second set of rings - 48,32 for climby brevets. I'm planning on swapping to those this winter.

To me, cycling is a compromise - no matter what you do. The ideal situation would be to have an infinite set of gears - perfect for every situation. This doesn't exist - so we have doubles, triples, compacts, singlespeeds, fixed gears, high wheelers, and unicycles to choose from. I chose a unique compact double - and I'll live with the ranges - using a casette, ring swaps if necessary, and better aerobic fitness and strength to my advantage.

I learned quite a bit from a small group of riders who did the Boston Brevet series fixed - one of them riding BMB in a 42x16. They would blow by me on the climbs - and seemed to be enjoying it a heck of alot more than me - I would occassionally catch them on a descent - but often they would just spin up and go...

Gears are only a part of the equation. Not long ago bikes had 10 useable speeds (or less) and people rode and toured just fine. We now have "10 speed" drivetrains - and options for potential combinations allowing 16 - 24 useable gears. Find something you like, get a ratio that works for the terrain you ride in, and train, ride, and have fun.

Find something that works for you, love it, ride it.

Thanks for the replies guys, very useful info. Now I just have to make a decision

Why are you looking to swap out anyway?

In the hope of smoother shifting than my triple. Just had the bike tuned and I'm not entirely satisfied with it. I rode double cranks when I was younger and never had any problems with shifting. I figured a compact double would be a good compromise between smoother shifting and having some lower gears.

sheldonbrown.com/gears sez: no change on the mph but the numbers do change if you are looking at gain ratios. (they are higher for the longer cranks).

I have a double and a triple and I definitely like the double more although I do miss the super low granny gears. I live in a pretty hilly area and hills that I used to be able to spin up I now have to do with a mix of standing and sitting. I've only had the bike for about two weeks though so I'm guessing that my legs will strenthen and I'll become a much better climber than I would have had I stuck with the triple. And ya, the shifting is much better, again most of the time I don't even leave the 50. The thing is though, the swap isn't a cheap one. I was considering swapping out as well and I wound up just getting a new bike.

Hah, not an option. The wife would throttle me Besides any switch would also be an upgrade as well. My current crank is a Bontrager Race with a 105 BB.

I wonder how many times this debate has been repeated? Might make a good script for the new TV show Deja Veu?

What channel is that on?

As a clyde at 6'4" and 280 pounds I just recently bought a barely used Trek road bike. It has a triple crank and I did not give it a second thought. After doing a 35 mile ride last weekend with a lot of hills I am glad I have the 30 tooth front ring. Without it I would have been walking up a lot of hills.
Think I would have been looked down on more for walking up hills than for having a triple. If and when I loose another 50 or 60 lbs. I might feel different but right now I am loving the 52/42/30.

When you look at threads, check the date. You just responded to a six year old one!

I shifted my rings at least 10X more often when I had a compact.

Drop below 17 MPH on the big ring, move to the small ring and drop five cogs in back from 50x21 (biggest cog not fully cross-chained) to 34x15. Exceed 19 MPH on the small thing, move to the big ring and shift more to get back five cogs moving from 34x14 (smallest cog not fully cross-chained) to 50x19. It sucked.

On flat ground with the same cadence limit you can put out about 90% more power using a triple with a 39 ring than you can with a 34 and the same cassette (the 39 ring sits between where the big and small rings are on a double so the entire cassette is usable without noise). With a standard crank and 39 ring it's about 50% more. That's substantial.

If you're strong enough to spin a 39x21, 23, or 25/26 up the majority of hills you'll ride and handle the rest you can use a full-size crank without compromising on spacing between cogs or front shifting depending one whether you prefer an 11, 12, or 13 starting cog (assuming 10 speeds in back; 19/21/23 are the numbers for 9, and 23/25 11).

Otherwise you're better off with a triple.

Personally, I'm currently on a 50-34/12-27 setup (me = weak), but I'm looking to clobber myself on the trainer this winter and come out with a 36t small chainring and possibly switching to a 12-25 cassette, to get a 14t difference up front for better shifting (it's hesitant about upshifting occasionally now). I have no use, currently, for >50x12, since I don't do racing, pacelines, or fast group rides, so 50x12 is only spun out downhill and then I'm usually fine with tucking and letting the legs rest. Especially in tris.

50-39-28 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 provides a lower gear than you have now, 11T difference in your non-climbing rings, plus 16 and 18 cogs which feel good when you're riding faster solo.

39x12 will let you ride 24% faster at the same cadence before you shift to the big ring compared to 34x13 while still running as smoothly.

IMHO road compact cranks are marketing invention to cut the number of SKUs companies would need to deal with versus triple cranks but don't work as well for rider/weight/fitness/terrain combinations that aren't a good match for 53-39 x 12-23 ten cogs or 53-39 x 12-25 11 speed.

All of my bikes have a 50-39-30 triple. 105 on 1 bike and Tiagra on the winter bike. I much prefer them to a standard double. I run a 11-23 on my road bike and a 12-28 on the winter bike. For me, I can hardly ever use the little ring, but when you need it you really need it. I have not ridden a compact double, but my buddy does. I see him shifting the FD a lot more than I do.
It's sorta like a saddle, sometime you just gotta try it and see if it works for you.

Yeah but... the goal isn't to need gearing this low indefinitely. 50-36 should have good shifting and I'm not sensitive enough to cadence to see a huge draw in 11-23 over 12-25 or 12-27 (especially since I don't care about 50x11 vs 50x12). IMHO, road triples are just about "look, a bajillion overlapping gears!", while bringing very little to the table over a compact and sensible cassette.

The thing I really don't get is Spesh's "mid-compact". 52-36 has the same 16t front shifting issue as 50-34, while only have slightly easier gears than a standard. 50-36 with an 11-2X cassette makes more sense as an "intermediate strength" gearing with a taller top ratio than 50x12. At least I can create that on my own easily enough.

That's because you're looking at it from the consumer side, and not the supply side. For a supplier, the "mid-compact" allows him to sell a compact, something close to a standard double and he only has to deal with a single 110BCD crank spider.

None of this helps the consumer, but part rationalization like this is very common.

This thread is so old maybe some of the posters have 7 or 8 speed hubs. Compacts weren't invented yet.

Wonder is this sets a record for responding to the oldest thread?

This may be an older thread, but still and interesting read. I've been contemplating updating my 1999 Raleigh R500 triple and have ridden by standard and compact doubles but not enough to know which I'd prefer. I rarely go into the granny gear on my triple so I was leaning to the standard double.

But I'm curious, have others who have moved from a triple to a double feel like one or the other types of doubles have been too much of a compromise?

I've got several bikes and I've tried all three over the years, triple, compact, standard. For me, I like the most challenging hills I can find where I live. As long as I can ride in about a 38 inch gear, I can climb anything, and I don't feel compromised with either standard or compact gearing.

For me, it comes down to this. On a triple I do less shifting of the chainrings - most of the time I'm in the middle ring. Shift to big on downhills, small or middle for climbing. On a double, I shift the front more often, but the shifting performance is so much better that it makes up for it. Of course, this will be a personal choice. If I lived in a hilly area, I might lean toward a triple or compact.

I need to address the issue of shifting on a triple. The shifting on the cassette is the same between a triple and a double. The triple having another chain ring on the front does slow down the shifting. However, you will be doing less shifting the front with a triple. 95% of the time I am in the middle chain ring and do not need to do any shifting on the front. I seldom use the big chain ring but will use the smallest chain ring on the nastiest hills or if I am exhausted and can't turn the pedals anymore.

If you are a flatlander, get a standard. If you live in a hilly area, a compact or a triple can give you the same range. However, the triple will have closer gear ratios but will weigh more and not shift as nice on the front chain rings.

I have been considering switching to a compact but I like having the closest gear ratios so I am sticking with my triple at this time.

You guys complaining about triple shifting owe it to yourselves to try out the 6700 triple.

i think one thing people here are overlooking is the intended use.

It makes one hell of a lot of difference if you live somewhere where it is completely flat, and you have no intention of using the bike anywhere else, or if you ride through mountains regularly.

EDIT:

This thread was made half a decade ago...

I recall a nearly 10-year thread bump in SS/FG not too long ago.

At any rate, "compact cranks" as a marketing term are a relatively new thing, but Sugino's 110BCD bolt pattern (and the ability to make a wide-range double with it) dates back to the 70's. Like a couple posters have noted, they're just a way to sell lower gears to someone who doesn't want to be seen with a triple.