# Synapse 5 Question: Triple or Compact?



## bradesp (Aug 16, 2009)

Guys,

Transitioning from a a trek 830 with slick tires to a road bike and have decided on a Synapse 5. I'm 75% leaning towards the alloy model vs CF.

Now my last remaining question is Triple vs Compact. My terrain here in north Raleigh, NC is 25% flat, 50% moderate inclines and 25% big hills of .25-.50 miles in length. My fitness level is above average for a typical 48 yr old, but way below average when compared to a competitive biker, although I expect that to change quickly once I get the miles logged on a regular basis.

I'm leaning towards compact, but I don't want to give up on gearing for pushing my speed when I'm on moderate to big down hill runs. I'm assuming the gearing with a compact for doing ascents on larger hills will be fine?

Thanks,

bradesp
bradesp


----------



## jscumbie (Jul 15, 2009)

*Compact*

I would suggest compact. Triple might be easier to begin with, but in the long run, you'll probably wish you had a compact. Also, make sure your rear cassette has a wide range, like 12-27 or 11-28. I live over in Winston-Salem, NC and have ridden a standard crank for the past 5 years with a 12-26 9-speed cassette. I just purchased a CAAD9-1 with a compact crank. The cassette is currently 12-25, but I will be swapping it with an 11-28. That will give me one more higher gear than I had and 2 more lower gears. 

I considered a triple for my first road bike 5 years ago and I'm glad I stayed with the standard crank (compacts were not an option at the time). By the way, I'm 47, 6' 0" and about 190 lbs.


----------



## lennon2666 (Jul 17, 2009)

I would also suggest the compact option. Triple can be a bit annoying when you're trying to find good gearing. You'll probably sit in the second and third rings most of the time, and having the chain extend to the big cog in back from those places will just get really frustrating, not least because of the noise of the chain sliding along the front derailleur. Compact will also push you to improve your pacing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2009)

With as many speeds as we have in the back I think compact provides plenty of range for most road riding.


----------



## fireplug (Nov 19, 2008)

I have the compact on my Synapse 5 and really like the gear selection I have.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

*Triple!*



bradesp said:


> bradesp
> bradesp


I've used both and if you don't mind the 1/4 pound or so weight penalty the triple gives you more gearing for steep hills and fills the gaps in between better. The compact can leave you using either the high end of the cassette or the low end of the cassette with the chain angled one way or the other. The triple you can switch between front rings and only require a one gear change on the rear (or so) to continue pedalling. With a triple you can use a tight rear cassette which is lighter weight, or switch to a larger rear cassette for steeper hill climbs. Plus when you blow up on a hill you simply go into bail out mode and don't fry your knees getting to the top of hills.

The big jump between the front rings on a Compact setup makes for rolling hill rides being less pleasant, if you need to constantly be changing between the front rings.


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

I agree with kneejerk! With a triple, you have the standard 39-53 gearing, but you have the little ring for a bail-out. With a compact, you will be double shifting theright lever everytime you shift the left. The modern triple drivetrains really work great. I use one, and although I don't use the granny ring much, it sure is nice to have when the going gets tough! Another plus is that at 48 years old, it's best to have the bail-out gears, as your joints aren't as young as they used to be. However, while it sounds like you are a good candidate for a triple, in the end, either will probably be fine. [BTW, I'm 48 myself, ride a triple carbon synapse and absolutely love it. It's the perfect bike for my aging and somewhat overweight body]


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

cyclust said:


> ]


I actually prefer using a 50 tooth big ring and the 11 out back, makes the 39 to big ring jump a little smaller


----------



## qwer (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm 6' and 220 lbs and have a Cannondale Synapse Flatbar and a BMC road bike, both with Triple. I've been riding MTB with Triples since my teens, so it was natural for me to go Triple with a road bike too.


----------



## KDGast (Dec 12, 2004)

I only run compacts on my road bikes. Much nicer shifting and plenty of gears for whatever is needed. Don't run any triples anymore.


----------



## jlyle (Jul 20, 2007)

I just completed a ride from Los Angeles to Boston on my SuperSix compact. I'm 64 years old and in good shape. We encountered some 12% grades, but most hills maxed out at 6-7%. At no time did I miss having a triple.

For the flatlands, you will use the 50 tooth front. For hills you will be in the 34. No double shifting for me.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

lennon2666 said:


> I would also suggest the compact option. Triple can be a bit annoying when you're trying to find good gearing. You'll probably sit in the second and third rings most of the time, and having the chain extend to the big cog in back from those places will just get really frustrating, not least because of the noise of the chain sliding along the front derailleur. Compact will also push you to improve your pacing.


I have a 105 triple (9 speed cassette) - I hate it for the same reasons lennon2666 stated about. After 4 years of riding it, I now need to have it adjusted twice per season because it start to jump back down now and again. I'd go to a compact in a heart beat if I had the $$s to do it right now. Put an 11-28 on the back an there isn't likely a climb that would kill you. If your knees are bad, maybe put a MTB 11-32/34 on the back - it won't shift as cleanly, but you can go up at a 1:1 ratio if you want. JMHO.


----------

