Do you drag your knuckles when walking upright? If so, predicate your comments with a sex qualifiermimason said:Are you a girl? If not get the compact.
DonDenver said:Do you drag your knuckles when walking upright? If so, predicate your comments with a sex qualifier
OP; Retro Grouch cites one of many CD v T thread discussions found via a search that provide a wide range of opinions. Net of all those discussions always seems to be your riding preference, Sheldon’s gear inch calculator and the benefit of improving leg strength clearly identifying that the best option is
How true. Then again, I've had a triple for the 15 months I've been riding again and never (not even once) had anyone comment on it. I've done several hard climbing rides (3 Mountain Madness, Hurt Pain & Agony, etc.) and have enjoyed a SLIGHT advantage over a typical compact setup (50/34 and 12/28 cassette). I've got a 52/39/30 crank and 12/25 cassette, which gives me about 1/2 of a gear advantage (based on gear inches and at least 3% between gears). It is more difficult to set up a triple, but once set up, it is no more trouble than a compact to shift. In fact, you'll probably change front rings more often with a compact setup. I almost never use my "granny" ring.tantra said:However, the REAL disadvantage is that triples aren't cool.
Where you really need the triple there isn't a substitute.gnatman said:As others suggested, search this forum for this much discussed thread.
As for the gearing range, find a gear ratio calculator and campare what you can get with a triple vs compact. If you're mostly concerned with low gears for climbing (as many are) You'll find that a 34t in front and 28t or 30t in back, with the proper rear derailier, can get you nearly triple chain-ring range.
Your second water bottle (20 oz) weighs 600 grams.av8torjim said:I have a triple because that's what came on the used bike I bought. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again. As for the argument that the weight is an issue, your second water bottle weights a lot more than the extra weight of a triple. Q factor may be an issue for some, but I doubt that it's really an issue.
A fixie rider would say much the same about your standard double. So HTFU and deal with it, Sals. :lol:Salsa_Lover said:
There's not a "huge" difference in top end. At a cadence of 80 rpm, the speed difference between a 53x11 and a 50x11 is 1.7 mph (30.1 vs. 28.4). At which point, if you were going downhill with a tailwind, you'd more than likely be better off tucking and coasting. I think I would get a triple if I did a ton of climbing in a really hilly area, but otherwise the aesthetic issue of it just really bothers me.Hooben said:There is a huge difference if you are doing any sort of serious climbing of 5 miles or more then the triple is the answer. Be careful with the compact... I found that the compact crank took too much of my speed away from my top end, since I don't have a very high cadence. This can be felt particularly on descents and with tailwinds where high speed is a must.
+1. In all these triple v. compact debates the point you make is a great one. The overlooked advantage of a triple imo, is the middle ring and the rideability it gives for most folks.because the middle ring, which should be a 42, does almost everything, whereas on a compact you are often on the fringe between the two rings and keep switching back and forth),
Agree with that. And no matter how you twist and turn this, the "compact" crank was pretty much a marketing move to give people lower gears while preserving the racy look of the bike. As such, it has worked out surprisingly well for many people. So well in fact, that word has gotten out and the triple is rejected out of hand (unfortunately, IMO) by many first-time road bike buyers.Greg Smalter said:You shift less [...] whereas on a compact you are often on the fringe between the two rings...