NRR: Compact vs. Triple road crank

Get the compact. Triple = geekazoid

BarryP wrote:

Get the compact. Triple = geekazoid

besides that, why is the compact better? will it give me easier climbing than the 52/39?

btw - coming from a running background, i have found out that while there are many running geeks, there are many more biking geeks.

thanks

The compact is better because it won't make you look like such a nurd. Trust me.

A road triple typically has a 30 as its smallest front cog, while a compact typically has a 34.

Given the smaller front cog, you'd certainly be able to achieve an easier low gearing with a triple. The only question is whether or not you'll actually need it.

With a 34 front/26 rear combination you'd be going about 8.2 mph if you pedal at a cadence of 80 rpm (I'm assuming a 210 cm wheel+tire circumference). (80 rpm is going to be a seated climb). You'd have to be riding exceptionally steep hills to need something easier than that.

Go with the compact over the triple, it's less to worry about and it shifts better (ok well at the most expensive end it probably doesn't make too much difference). I don't know any cyclists who use a triple on a daily basis.

thanks for the responses. i guess i still don't understand why a compact is better. will i be able to go up steep, long climbs as easy with a compact as a triple? i understand the triple is not always needed and may be harder to change gears, but will the compact get me up the really steep stuff. i understand that i would be a dork, etc with a triple.

i just started riding about a year ago and got a second hand bike that originally came with a ultegra triple, but had been replace with a FSA carbon 52/39. i have the triple to put back on the bike, but was wondering if i should spend the money now to put on a compact. (or wait until i really get into biking and buy a whole new package) most of the rides are very hilly in western jersey (it is not all a flat cesspool). group rides may average 16-19mph over hilly 50M. on flats we may cruise at 22+. nothing fancy. i'm 41 and not worried about looks or weight, just function.

thanks

A compact is not necessarily "better" but it is different. No, it will not get you up hills as easily Any time you have a front crank with only 30 teeth (which you have on the triple) it is always going to be easier than one with 34 (which is usually the small ring on the compact), as long as the cassette gearing is the same.

However if you change the cassette on the back, you can keep your climbing much easier.

Basically the advantage of a compact over a triple is that it is lighter, generally simpler (less chance for shifting problems) and requires you to shift up front less. The more you ride you'll find that changing big rings up front is generally a pain in the ass compared to changing gears on the cassette behind.

I'm a lot like you. My first road bike was a Trek with a triple. On the back was a 12/27 cassette. I did a few races on it. I thought the easy gears were simply too easy and I almost never needed them.

Then a friend gave me a regular 53/39 crank and suggested I use that. I did and found I couldn't get up some of the steeper climbs without a huge effort -- the kind that would really hurt me in a triathlon. Basically my easy gear went from 30x25 to 39x25. Much harder.

I then switched to a compact. My easy gear is 34x25. Nto as easy as the triple but easy enough for me.

Now you need to compare a compact to a standard crank: The compact has the advantage of (as mentioned) making your easy gears easier. It has the downside of generally having a much bigger jump between rings up front. In other words if you change rings up front, you'll find you often need to change 3 gears in back to maintain the same cadence, as opposed to the 2 you'd need with a standard crank.

Another disadvantage people mention is that your top gear with a compact is not as fast as your top gear with a standard, as long as you have the same cassette. It's true that 53x12 is gonna go faster at 100 RPM than 50x12. But 50 x 11 will go faster still.. So if you switch your back cassette to, say 11x25 or 11x26, you'll get a wider range overall. Better top end and better low end

The downside of THAT approach is bigger jumps between cassette shifts. It is not as "incremental" as before.

It's always a tradeoff. It takes a long time to settle what you like. Don't worry too much if you don't get it all now. You might find this calculator handy though:

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

I used to ride up in a few "mountains" for some of my rides. I've done it with a mountain bike when I started (used the top gear and just grinded it out), but then got a used old steel trek. Using that bike, it was a bitch to use only a double, but I was able to do it. I'd say if you find that you need that extra set of gear ratios that a triple gives you, switch it. If you're fine without it, then keep the compact on. I was able to get accustomed to the double after a bit (maybe a month or two), but it's all about what you prefer.

jersey biker wrote:

i just started riding about a year ago and got a second hand bike that originally came with a ultegra triple, but had been replace with a FSA carbon 52/39. i have the triple to put back on the bike, but was wondering if i should spend the money now to put on a compact. (or wait until i really get into biking and buy a whole new package)

Ah. That adds a new twist. I didn't realize you already had a triple.

Don't bother buying the compact now. Just put the triple on and wait until you decide this is something you'll get serious about. At that time you might think about upgrading your whole setup.

I've got a compact and live in a hilly area. On days I just want to spin a lot of miles, I wished I had a triple. The compact is only good for going hard on hills.

I also wouldn't try to pick a big range rear cassette to even things out at the front crank. I'd pick the tightest gear ratios you can on the cassette for better shifting and making it easier to find the right gear out on the road.

52/39: flats, crits, professionals on hills

50/34 compact: fast days on hills, flats

triple: training on hills, all conditions

not a Fred wrote:

I've got a compact and live in a hilly area. On days I just want to spin a lot of miles, I wished I had a triple. The compact is only good for going hard on hills.

What cassette do you have on back?

Clearly you don't like the 52/39 setup that's on the bike now. It's free to switch back to the triple and see how you like that. Seems like a no brainer to me. Put the triple back on and if you don't need the lowest gears you can decide if it's worth going to the compact. If you need the lowest gears but would like to diddle less with the front derailleur then you can decide if you want to shell out for the compact and a wider range rear cassette.

Stop being a nancy and ride a 53/39 front.

I bet you also wear a gel belt while running.

Hi, I am trying to avoid buyer's remorse. Just bought a bike with a compact crank and am worried that I won't be able to handle the hills. I had the choice between this bike, a women's alloy 2010 Cannondale Synapse 5 10 speed with Shimano 105 components and a 2010 all carbon frame Synapse 2010 with a triple crank, 9 speed and lesser components and about $300 more.

What are your thoughts?

How big are your hills? My road bike came with a triple, and I have never once used the 30T chainring. My current bike runs a compact up front, and that is more than adequate is you're reasonably strong and don't weigh 180+ pounds.

If you're having trouble in the hills with a compact, you need to get a different cassette in the back. A lot of bikes come with a 12-23 or 12-25. Jumping up to a 12-27 would make a huge difference. But again, don't do it unless you have to. Triples are for wimps and newbies, unless you live in the Alps.

One vote for the triple here. But I use my bike for about two/three weeks of touring a year. Getting up over mountain passes, with camping gear, is much more comfortable with a triple.

My thoughts are not relevant. Go out and try it. If it works for you, great. If not, you can change the gearing or trade it in for something else.

jersey biker wrote: btw - coming from a running background, i have found out that while there are many running geeks, there are many more biking geeks.

This is because cycling is an expensive, elitest sport. And to their credit, geeks have all the money. Nothing cracks me up more than seeing a club cyclist riding a $6000 Masi frame with a Campy Record groupo. But if they can afford it, more power to 'em.

I prefer to just use a single ring in front. A 50 works for everything for me.

As a not too serious cyclist I don't have the power to turn a huge gear and I also hate the idea of putting the bike in some granny gear so I can spin up a hill while pretending I'm not working hard.

Generally I do most of my riding with a 48x15 fixie set-up. When you do that you quickly realize that a vast number of gear combinations is just some exercise in making hard work seem easier.