Hello!

I'm a clydesdale! (Did that sound like I'm coming to terms with this issue?) I'm 6'3" and weigh 270lbs. I just bought a 2007 Trek Madone 5.2sl. I love this bike! I came with an Ultegra Crankset and was wondering from some other clydesdales what they think about Compacts or Triples.

The other part to this is my best buddy is buying a road bike this weekend and is going through the same dilemma. I feel that since I have the set up for Doubles, I should go with a Compact. It would be an easier switch. But, if you bought a new bike and had the choice, what would be the better choice for him?

Here is a little about our riding style. We are both old mtb'ers that are failing in health and want to get back on track (Hence the Clydesdale Status). We live in Northern California and have plenty of hills to climb, but lots of options for flat roads as well.

Thanks ahead for all your answers.

See ya on the road!
Terry

I would go for the compact vs the triple. Just less gears to mess with.

Depends on what you really want to do. If you see yourself going up and down the hills day in and day out, the triple might come in handy. If you see yourself mostly going around the flatlands, then go with the compact.

Or if you are going to take your bike to exotic mountain locals, you might want the triple...

That's what I did... and I've taken my ride to Western NC, Central NH, and even Evergreen, CO. Believe it or not, NC was the area that I was happiest to have my triple rings.

Just my 2 pence

I love my triple. It's a little more weight to carry, but not that much. I seem to hear as many shifting issues with compacts as triples. Since you live in NoCal I would have your friend look for a triple.

Now if I were you and had a double I would convert to compact to save $ on components.

This has been brought up so many times here and the answers are always the same. You will get a mix of responses from a lot of die hard anti-triple users, many who have probably never used one. A lot of the riders would not use one due to pride and I see many people suffer up hills on a full size setup. Of course there are riders who can not make it up the same hill with a triple. I have used both and have had success with both triples and compacts. I have limited time riding a full double and with the hills of San Diego County would not even consider one. If the bike came with a triple I would keep it and ride until you can think of a reason you need a compact. If it comes with a compact then ride it unless you have trouble with the hills. If it comes with a full double and you want lower gearing I would recommend swapping for a compact double but be prepared to work a little on the steeper hills. You can always go with a lower range cassette to get even lower...such as a 12-27.
Enjoy whatever you end up with!

T

I'm an aging Clyde ex-mountain biker, too, and live in Reno, so we've got similar hills. Both my main road bikes (Atlantis and Rambouillet) have "compact triples" (around 48-36-26). My previous bikes were standard doubles, 53-39, and I NEVER used the higher gears. With the smaller big rings, I can use most of the cassette and have more flexibility. I use the small ring a lot this time of year, less often as I get into better shape, but there's no downside to having it beyond an imperceptible increase in weight. It's not like you had to fight the shifter to keep the thing from going into granny gear. If you don't need it, don't use it, but it's nice to have when you do.

I'm a 20 year veteran of cycling, a 47 year veteran of being a clyde [275lbs now] and have used every conceiveable set up imagineable, so I think I'm well qualified to weigh in [no pun intended] on this issue. I'm personally most happy with the compact I'm currently running. I run a 12-27 rear cassette, so it gets as low as a triple with a 12-25. If you are running a 10 speed rear, going with the wider range cassette is'nt much of a tradeoff. 20 years ago when you only had 6 or 7 speeds, that range would leave very large jumps between gears. Of course I don't know the kind of climbs you will be facing, but with a triple, there is so much overlap that you really don't gain any more useable gears. In fact with the small ring, it's only useable with the 2 or 3 largest cogs. And if you are not super fit [ what clyde is?] then a 53 is more top end than you'll need anyway. Sure, you may be able to spin a 12-53 down a 7% grade, but as a clyde, your weight will help you down that hill plenty fast enough. Converting to a compact will only mean swapping the crankset [or only the drive side crank, but it's unlikely that you can buy only that] and moving the front derailluer down. The triple swap will invole swapping both derailluers, the crank, the bottom bracket and maybe the shifters, if they aren't triple compatible. Even though I can't go quite as low with my gearing on a compact as a triple, I find the steeper climbs easier now, as I now just get in my lowest gear and grind away at a low cadence, where as with a triple, I was spinning much faster, which had by heart rate a lot higher. I have very strong legs [20 years on the bike at well over 200lbs will do that] so despite what most people will tell you, grinding away at a low cadence can get you up hills with what seems to be less effort. I would advise trying the compact first, since there is minimal cost involved. One further note. If you happen to run a nine speed, you could run a compact with a MTB rear derailluer and a 11-32 or 34 rear cassette. That will be super low gearing. Alternatively, for a 10 speed set up, I've heard that Harris cyclery makes 10-34 cassettes for 10 speed shimano set ups. Ultimately, however, both set ups will work, and with today's shifter technology, even the triple shift great, and I think you'll be happy with either. But definitely get rid of the standard double. They are not for clydes, unless you live in pool table-flat terrain.

Depends on what you really want to do. If you see yourself going up and down the hills day in and day out, the triple might come in handy. If you see yourself mostly going around the flatlands, then go with the compact.

Exactly!

I just bought a new bike and it came with a triple. I think I have used the lowest cog only 2x but when I did I was SO happy I had it. I try to spend almost all of my time in the middle or the largest cog. I bought a bike to work hard and stay in shape not as an excuse to exercise. If you have a triple you dont have to use the smallest unless you REALLY need to. But it is there. Forget about the little extra weight....

I just bought a new bike and it came with a triple. I think I have used the lowest cog only 2x but when I did I was SO happy I had it.

Same here. I live in a really hilly area and while I don't use the smallest chainring that much, I'm glad I have it when I need it. I think the weight issue is a matter of a couple grams which isn't a huge deal to me.

my new road bike has a triple and i'm happy that I have it. i was amused when the guy at the store said "go with the triple, its more honest".

I'm an aging Clyde ex-mountain biker, too, and live in Reno, so we've got similar hills. Both my main road bikes (Atlantis and Rambouillet) have "compact triples" (around 48-36-26). My previous bikes were standard doubles, 53-39, and I NEVER used the higher gears. With the smaller big rings, I can use most of the cassette and have more flexibility. I use the small ring a lot this time of year, less often as I get into better shape, but there's no downside to having it beyond an imperceptible increase in weight. It's not like you had to fight the shifter to keep the thing from going into granny gear. If you don't need it, don't use it, but it's nice to have when you do.

What is a "compact triple"? I have never seen this term before. I thought a triple was a triple, a standard double was something like a 53-39, and a compact double was something like 50-34.

Doing a quick Google search, most of the discussion of "compact triples" relates to touring bikes where you must carry heavy loads. Harris Cyclery seems to sell parts for them.

My first bike was a triple. I bought a new bike last year and it came with a compact double. Other then shifting more between the two chainrings I don't feel much of a difference. I am a Clyde also.

I would go for the compact vs the triple. Just less gears to mess with.

+1

Switching to a compact from your Ultegra double would be easy- just the new crank/BB. Switching to a triple would also need new left (front) shifter ($$). Switching to a compact with a 12-27 cassette would give you lots of lower gears for hills without too much extra cost. The extra trouble of going to a standard triple would gain roughly the equivalent of 1 more downshift vs compact double.

Clydes RULE!!! I switched my double to a compact as well. I put an 11-28 in the back and 50/34 on the front.