Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Compact double or triple chainset for women?

Seems to be quite a lot of preference expressed on this topic, but I'm keen to understand better the arguments for choosing between a compact double or a triple for a woman. (Note: I fully understand the technical arguments around being able to get a broader range, or narrower gap between gears. But the same holds true for men also...)

Context: I am rebuilding a road bike for my wife, who is starting to regain her fitness after the arrival of child #3 (having had little opportunity to maintain fitness since arrival of child #1 around 8 years ago). The bike currently has an old triple on it (with 8 on the cassette), and I am debating whether to replace it with a newer 2x10 compact (am not currently considering 2x11).

I personally used to ride a triple, but switched to a compact double a number of years ago, and I would not go back to a triple now. However, I note that quite a large number of the women's specific bikes come with triples (anecdotally many more triples in women's specific bikes than in male/non-gender specific).

I haven't yet worked out why triples would be a better choice for women than compact doubles. Unlikely that my wife will be riding any major mountains in the near future, and if she does start getting to that point, that will be the time to upgrade completely.

What is the opinion amongst the readership here? Am particularly interested in hearing from regular women cyclists about what you chose, why, and how it has worked out for you.

[Edit: Happy also to hear from unusual women...! I of course meant that I am interested in hearing from women who cycle regularly...  1 ]

[Edit 2: my smiley face above turned into a smiley face on a phone - now fixed]

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

22 comments

Avatar
Glyn | 9 years ago
0 likes

Either or. Triples generally do not let you cross chain from biggest to smallest sizes which means you do have to fuss about to get the best out of the gears whereas compacts let you ride along with the chain crossed which is far easier.

Avatar
pants | 9 years ago
0 likes

what is the best groupset for men?

Avatar
matthewn5 | 9 years ago
0 likes

I built a bike for my wife, and used a compact crank. Reason? She has small hands finds it hard to use the front derailleur at all, because of the high force required to change up on to the big ring, so a triple was out of the question.

In fact a high proportion of the more casual riders I see don't even bother to push the levers in the 'hard' direction at all. Look around, you'll see people stuck in 34x12 all over the place. I see at least three, men and women, on my commute. I've never seen them change gear at all. Presumably they got the bike new, clicked the levers in the easy direction on the first ride, then never bothered again.

So I guess my point is: unless she's already totally au fait with gears, try 1x10 or 1x9 or single speed maybe.

Avatar
Tjuice replied to matthewn5 | 9 years ago
0 likes
drmatthewhardy wrote:

So I guess my point is: unless she's already totally au fait with gears, try 1x10 or 1x9 or single speed maybe.

Hehe! Don't think singlespeed is going to be her kind of thing (despite my personal strong affection for fixed gear bikes).

Yes, she's quite happy with gears front and back, having ridden various MTBs, race bikes, and flat-barred geared commuters over the years.

Think we'll probably go with the experiment of using the old groupset for a little while and see how she gets on before making a firm decision.

Thanks all.

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't know if this helps, it was created from Sheldon Brown's gear calculator.

52/39/30 (solid) 50/34 (dashed) with a 12-25 9 speed cassette.

Click the image to see it full size.

Avatar
Chris James replied to Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think the chart illustrates the issue quite well. I find myself gravitating to using gears in the range of 60-70 inches (16-18mph at a cadence of 90). This is smack in the middle of the cassette for the middle ring of the triple.

The compact only gives you that sort of gear at fairly extreme big/big and small/small combinations. I guess 11 speed cassettes with 11-30 type ranges have mitigated this to a degree.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 9 years ago
0 likes

http://pixgood.com/fixed-gear-ratio-chart.html

This is all you need to know....

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 9 years ago
0 likes

Do the math....simples.

What I mean is that it depends on what the triple is made of as to whether there is a decent benefit.

Back in the day when your inner ring might be a 28, your middle a 39 and your outer a 53 then maybe you would be talking a reasonable differential between gears.

My brother was given a triple as a hire bike earlier this year, the inner ring and middle ring were a 34/39.....there was no point. All the give in the front derailleur only gives rise to more chain dropping action than medieval prison riot, a for not benefit.....

there is a great graphic which you might be able to find on the internet or pinterest which shows the diff.

Avatar
dottigirl | 9 years ago
0 likes

My first road bike was a triple and I still ride it for errands and trips of less than 30 miles.
I like the middle ring. I find I'll keep a better cadence with the triple than a compact or standard crankset. It's mostly flat around SW London, so I'm in the middle most of the time.
The drawback is the near-constant adjustment my knackered parts need.

What cassette range will she have on the back?

Avatar
keef66 | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have one bike with a 50/39/30 triple and a 12-25 cassette, and one bike with a 46/36 CX chainset and a 12-27 cassette. If I was forced to choose just one I'd probably go for the simplicity of the latter, but there's not much in it.

With the triple I spend 95% of the time in the 39 chainring and use the whole cassette because I'm lazy. Bit more front changing with the CX chainset.

I did have a 53/39 double, but with ageing legs I used the big ring so rarely I replaced it with the CX chainset

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes
John Stevenson wrote:

Off the peg triples are stupid.

I disagree. My 50/39/30 triple may seem "stupid" to you John but, like Chris James, it suits my purposes perfectly. Horses for courses.

Those wanting super-low gears for laden touring would be better off with a MTB (triple?) chainset.

The 9 speed Sora CX chainset is 46/34 and the rear derailleur will handle 32 teeth. The shifters are rebadged Tiagra 9 speed so reliable yet slick & smooth. The saving over a 10 speed groupset could be spent on some nice wheels. If I was building a bike similar to the OP's purposes that's what I'd choose.

Avatar
Kapelmuur | 9 years ago
0 likes

Have a thought for us oldies who would like to ride up hills without bursting our ageing hearts.

I can just about manage the steeper stuff on 30 x 30, but it may not be too long before I need a lower option.

Mind you, I hadn't realised that getting off and pushing was an option until I read 'Joeinpooles' post.

Avatar
Rod Marton | 9 years ago
0 likes

Many years ago I rode a go-anywhere bike with a 7 speed triple. This gave the ideal range and spacing of gears, and as the number of sprockets on the cassette gradually increased I failed to notice any improvement. Nowadays we have compact doubles with 10/11 speed cassettes, and - guess what - we have come back to the same number and range of gears - though everything has become lighter, more expensive and less durable. In short, if you aren't racing I don't see any advantage in changing your current 8 speed triple to a 10 speed compact double - and there is the small disadvantage that the jump between the chainrings becomes larger.

Avatar
Rod Marton | 9 years ago
0 likes

Many years ago I rode a go-anywhere bike with a 7 speed triple. This gave the ideal range and spacing of gears, and as the number of sprockets on the cassette gradually increased I failed to notice any improvement. Nowadays we have compact doubles with 10/11 speed cassettes, and - guess what - we have come back to the same number and range of gears - though everything has become lighter, more expensive and less durable. In short, if you aren't racing I don't see any advantage in changing your current 8 speed triple to a 10 speed compact double - and there is the small disadvantage that the jump between the chainrings becomes larger.

Avatar
Tjuice replied to Rod Marton | 9 years ago
0 likes
Rod Marton wrote:

In short, if you aren't racing I don't see any advantage in changing your current 8 speed triple to a 10 speed compact double

Except that the whole triple groupset is now pretty worn out, and a lot of it could do with replacing. E.g., I've had to dismantle the (supposedly non-user-serviceable) shifters a couple of times to clean out hardening grease and to re-lube, and they have a number of scrapes; also cranks no longer look beautiful. Keen to build up a nice bike for my wife, so there's going to need to be some groupset investment.

Given all the above perspective, perhaps the answer is that in the very short-term, I just put the triple back on the bike and assess my wife's riding style/needs. As her fitness builds, I think the likelihood is that she would spend very little time in the inner ring, but would possibly benefit from it in the short term. If it looks like she does not need the range of gears and is not too sensitive to the gaps between them, then I'll consider a compact double, rather than replacing a triple with another triple.

Thanks for input everyone - does seem to come down to preference, rather than there being particular benefits one way or the other.

Avatar
lisa76uk | 9 years ago
0 likes

I ride a compact 50/34 and an 11 speed 11-28 cassette. I ran variations through a gear ratio calculator before I settled on that set up, just to check, but it's never been a problem and I can climb plenty of steep hills on it. I would only bother using a triple on a mountain bike. I also ride 45x16 on a fixed gear for commuting/tooling around if that has any relevance for gearing, probably not.

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

Although I like my triple, a 2-ring solution is simpler.

But my gripe with compacts is the jump between 50 and 34 teeth so I would suggest a 46/36 CX double. The extra 2 teeth of a 36 is 5% higher than 34t, negligible IMHO.

Fit a 12-28 cassette the bottom gear is not much bigger than a typical triple's 30x25. Current rear mechs will let you run 32 low gear on the back, that will surely be low enough for most things.

The only reason I can think why there are more triples among women's bikes is that men have opted en masse for compacts. This is likely due to insecurity - the insignificant 150-200g difference must keep them awake at night, along with the ever present fear of being laughed at by the bigger boys with their "man-sized" 53/39 chainrings  3

Avatar
pablo | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have a tripple on my old winter bike and really don't see the point yeah you have a closer ratio between gears but you can get the equivalent granny gear on a compact it's also a pain to keep running properly I very rarely use the 30 ring. On my tripple lowest is 30/25 and on my compact for hills i change the cassette and have 34/30 which is actually lower gearing than the tripple. I live with the tripple because it's on my junk winter bike but i'd never buy another one. The only good think i can say about the tripple is because its actually higher geared than the compact getting some serious speed up is easy.

Avatar
Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have a triple and I wouldn't buy a bike with one again. I think they're ugly, heavier, harder to adjust and provide very little extra help to get up the hills. I'll probably swap it out for a compact soon.

The difference between the lowest ratio on a compact (34) and most triples (30) is only 4 teeth. That's not a significant difference (whether the rider is male or female) and, quite frankly, I'd rather get off the bike and walk if I can't manage with the compact. I'm sure that losing a bit of excess body fat would be much greater help than 4 fewer cogs on the chainring.

Btw, getting off the bike and walking up the steepest bits was considered to be the 'sensible' thing to do 30+ years ago __ not the "walk of shame" it has become today. It preserves a great deal of energy and gives your legs, back and nether-regions a welcome change of position for a few minutes.

Avatar
rjfrussell | 9 years ago
0 likes

More female specific bikes have triples because fewer women buy the macho bullshit that if the pros only have two rings (relatively) unfit amateurs should only have two rings. Very frustrating that the new 105 11 sp does not come with a triple.

Avatar
birzzles | 9 years ago
0 likes

i have thought alot about this.

i have a triple, it has always been fine and i use all of it. A triple is a normal chainset 53/39 with an extra ring. A compact has larger drop between the rings 50-34 = 16. If you work out the ratios a compact doesnt give such a good spread of gears through the ratios, and 52/36 can be worse. SRAM with a 32 ring at the back on Apex and later stuff gives the low gear but faces the problem of intermediate gear spacing. An 11 speed addresses some of this, but need to be careful on spacing. I definitely would want my lowest ratio which is 30 / 27. Depends where you ride in the end and the cadences you like.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Was/is your wife very fit. I don't see why she would need a triple if she is. That said a triple allows you to bail out into the granny ring, so anybody can climb the steepest hills.

Maybe consider a mountain bike crankset with say 36 - 22T marry that to a 10 speed 11-36 cass and she will go anywhere, but not at top speed.

Latest Comments