Fifty Plus (50+) - Compact double for the 50+ crowd

I posted this in another forum and haven't really decided yet between buying a new Trek 1500 with a triple, double or compact double crankset. I ride 12 miles a day over some hills in central mass on my current bike, a Trek 720. and don't use the small ring of the triple. I think the extra top end for the double is not worth losing some low gears, but the compact intrigues me - because of the crisper shifting and extra gearings on the low end. I compared gear-inches for the lowest gear I ride on the Trek 720 to the lowest gears for a compact double and find that I would only lose, by a fraction, the lowest gear. In summary, I am leaning towards the compact, the area I ride in is hilly but not mountainous, and I'm 55. Oh yes, I probably will upgrade in a few years to a more top of the line bike.

Thanks

My favorite bike has a 50/39 double - with downtube shifters. I love it, it's a cross between the simplicity of a single speed and the advantages of multiple gears.

I put a compact 50/34 on my bike this year and have been able to tame some hills vs the 50/39 setup before. The compact was a less expensive upgrade vs the triple.
If I had a choice on a new bike I may lean towards the triple vs compact but having said that with the compact every gear is useable, there is no duplication of gears that you could get with a triple. I imagine if you search the road riding forum you will find some info and comments on compacts. To each his/her own as we all have different riding styles and goals.

If you "ever" have to ask the question about cranksets - you might as well choose a triple. People who ride regular cranksets know they don't need anything else.

I am new to this site and have only been road biking for about a year. But I have ridden a century and like to get in a 40-50 mile ride at least once a week. I like to spin and try to keep my cadence in the upper 80's - lower 90's and try to average over 17mph. I also like to attack hills by spinning as fast as I can for as long as I can. My mph and fast spinning depends on the hills as I ride in the rolling hills of Northern Virginia. I am not sure why they are called rolling hills because some of them are steep but anyway I wanted to improve my climbing. I have a 12/27 cassette and very recently changed from a 53/39 to a compact 50/34 crankset. I also did some analysis, but I used development instead (distance the bike travels for one crank revolution). I found that the 50-12 combination was between the 53-12 and 53-13 combinations. And since I was never in the 53-12 even when going downhill, it was a no brainer for me. I also found that a compact eliminates a couple of redundant gear combinations.

I have only ridden my compact a couple of times, but I have found that shifting in the front takes a little getting used to because of the 16 tooth jump verses the 14 tooth jump I had before. I find at times when I shift into the small chainring that I am spinning a bit too fast, so I just need to find a back-front or front-back shifting methodology that works for me. I also find that I was "lving" in the large chainring of my compact more than before and using more of my cassette, which I really like.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only ridden it a couple of time, but so far I do like it! Before I got my compact, I talked a number of people who had made the switch and only one regretted it and switched back. She races and wanted the extra speed the 53 gave her.

I recently went from a 30-40-50 triple to a 34-50 compact double. I rarely miss the lost lowest gears. If I know I'll be doing some extreme climbing I can switch to a larger rear freewheel to compensate. What is taking some getting used to is the lack of duplicate gear ratios. I'm having to think a little more about when to go from the large to small ring and vice versa. But it is becoming less of a problem as I get more miles in. Front shifting is definitely sharper with a double.

... haven't really decided yet between buying a new Trek 1500 with a triple, double or compact double crankset.
...current bike, a Trek 720. and don't use the small ring of the triple.

1) I think the extra top end for the double is not worth losing some low gears, but the compact intrigues me - because of the crisper shifting and extra gearings on the low end.

2) I compared gear-inches for the lowest gear I ride on the Trek 720 to the lowest gears for a compact double and find that I would only lose, by a fraction, the lowest gear.

3) In summary, I am leaning towards the compact, the area I ride in is hilly but not mountainous, and I'm 55. Oh yes, I probably will upgrade in a few years to a more top of the line bike.
Thanks

I've gone to compact (50/34) on 3 of my machines, them being the newest, including the one I now race on. Compact works fine for me. But I use reasonably closely spaced cassettes on all of them (12-21 or 13-23) so I have no real experience on 'function' with a greater gear spread.

1) STD double 53/39 - doesn't work for me anymore cause any real climbing finds me needing a mid40s and lower gear. I could do that with more spread in the cassette, but then I lose more choices in the ranges from 85 to 65, which is where I spend most of my riding time. Compact gives me a good low end (38 inch) and keeps the mid range well geared.
1a) I find the compact least 'crisp' out of STD double (3 bikes currently), triple (2 bikes currently) and compact. The throw from 34 to 50 is a tough one for any FD to handle 'crisply'. My Triples all shift as well as any STD double, course that could be cause I use either a BArcon or DT shifter for the Front - Brifters are an annoyance and 'overkill' for front shifting - IMO.
That said, I do have one bike with Full brifters and with a compact, and it shifts fine.
If front shifting becomes an issue, then something isn't right.

2) If that lowest gear is NEVER used, then forget it - but is there a chance that you'll want it at some future ride?
Not sure why so many put the knock on triples, as if ridng a triple is '2nd class'. Hardly... one still needs the motor to do the work.
And, of course, the terrain you ride in has everything to do with what will work best.
The modern triples, and the associated drivetrain parts are tops in performance. My only reason for not using them more is 'Q-factor' - I'm somewhat knockkneed and the wider spread is very noticeable and sometimes uncomfortable on real long rides, otherwise modern triples are very cool. Didn't figure it out for some time until I noticed the issue whenever I did any 80+ mi rides on my triples. But that was before going to Eggbeaters which have lotz of 'float', that may change things... I'll have to revisit the 'Triple on a long ride' thing.

3) Best might be to do a solid ride on a 'compact' setup before buying. Many of the bike shops around here will have bikes you can do a solid ride on before making a decision. It doesn't even have to be the bike you;re intending to buy. As long as its close in intent (road v mtb) and a decent 'fit', then you can get a feel for 'compact' - if the shop will set you up with a 'loaner'.
'Upgrading' - what you 'PLAN' to buy in the future has no real bearing on what gearing you might need/want now, unless you're a multi-bike person.;)
My best day in the last 10 years was the day I no longer had only a STD double to pull off the rack for a ride. YMMV

Mrs. M.'s favourite has a 50/40, my roadie has a 52/39...both give a nice range for most roads we ride up here, but my favourite asphalt bike is a triple...48/36/26 with a 9 spd 11-32 cassette

If you "ever" have to ask the question about cranksets - you might as well choose a triple. People who ride regular cranksets know they don't need anything else.

While I agree in principle, those principles go right out the window when I am tackling Mt. Mofo on my fully loaded touring bike. :eek: :D

I am not sure why they are called rolling hills because some of them are steep

Rolling = you roll over one hill and right into another. ;)

Who needs a 53 ring if you're running an 11 cog....or even a 12?

A question that only you can really answer. I've got a 50/34 double on my Klein and I love it. YMMV.

If you "ever" have to ask the question about cranksets - you might as well choose a triple. People who ride regular cranksets know they don't need anything else.
Why so negative? Why not be helpful? And if not helpful, why post in the first place? :(

iks, please ignore RC. You could always try a relatively inexpensive test to find out if the compact is suited to your area. Buy a smaller middle ring for your triple and see if it, without ever using the granny, takes you up all the hills in your area. If so, unmount the granny and reset your FD limit stops to work with just the middle and large rings.

one thing I'm not likin about the compact setup (with my current 8 spd cassettes) is

shifting from '63 in.' to the next gear down, '59 in.'
'63' is 50/21, chain on the #7 cog
to get to '59' I have to drop to the 34 ring and move back down to the #3 cog, very awkward.

I could do the double shift one earlier, when going from '69' to '60', means double shift 50 to 34 and #6 cog to #2 cog, same same as above and then I lose the 63 in gear, which I use often on short hills.

So as much as I like almost all things about compact, that double shift location is a PITA! It comes right on the run up to a climbing section when you want to carry momentum at the start of the climb, and not be fiddlin with a double shift.
Different cog range setup? nope, can't afford to lose those important gears.
solution might be to finally go to a 9 spd cassette and thereby move the shift point further out to a lower gear...
any other thoughts out there?

Why so negative? Why not be helpful? And if not helpful, why post in the first place? :(

I think that is the point...to get a rise..

maybe it's just me, but I find my 50/39/30 12/27 road bike doesn't climb as well as my 48/38/28 12/26 hybrid. I know quite a few people around here who ride compact doubles and there are SERIOUS hills in the area.

here in the flats of central illinois, i find my 50/34 perfect for me. i run a 11/23 cass. and hardly ever use the small ring locally, but on a trip to southern il. i used the 34 a lot. i like the compact setup..

Karl

Hi iks (you must be a neighbor - I'm in Pepperell)...

I have two bikes, one with a std double (53/39 + 12/25 cassette) and another with compact (50/34 + 12/25 cassette). One of the reasons I built up the second bike was to try this setup out.

Both bikes are good in my neighborhood. One reason I got the compact is for more climbing-oriented rides. For example, when I head North towards the White Mountains, the std is definitely tough for me on some of the hills. The compact is better (although it's not a huge difference). Ironically, I thought I would spin more with the compact, but I find that I stay in the big ring most of the time - because I can:). If I were to race (an apparition that appears from time to time), I think that I would use the std double.

Central Mass has some pretty good hills. Seems the settlers were cognizant of floods - at least that's what I tell myself when I'm riding into a town like Rutland that just seems to keep going up...

Triples can be good too -- although I haven't had one, it must be a very secure feeling to know that you could get up any hill!

Triples can be good too -- although I haven't had one, it must be a very secure feeling to know that you could get up any hill!

I ride a mountain bike with 44/32/22 and 11/32 on it and believe me- offroad you use the whole range of gears. On the road on the mountain bike- I may not use the 32 rear but the rest still come into play. Then the Tandem- offroad beast and a triple again- 48/36/24 and 11/32. All of the gears are used offroad but surprisingly- on the road the only time the 48/11 gets used is downhill, and this thing is not slow on the road. Perhaps it is the number of 15% and the odd 20%er road hills that dictates that we use this low a gearing but must admit that Mountain bikes are not light.

So when I got the Road bike-I got a triple 52/42/30 and 12/26. Took it up the 20% hill afew weeks ago and into a stiff headwind. That 30 /26 was used for most of it. At the other end- I rarely get into the 52. We have those rolling hills and lots of short sharp rises and not a great deal of flat stuff to get into.

I think you have to look at your terrain- look at your body strength and decide which way you want to go. Hate to say it but at my age- on our hills- There is no shame in me taking my granny out for a ride. That way I do not have to push the bike up the STEEP hills- which last year I saw several roadies with 53/42 and small rear cassettes doing.

one thing I'm not likin about the compact setup (with my current 8 spd cassettes) is

shifting from '63 in.' to the next gear down, '59 in.'
'63' is 50/21, chain on the #7 cog
to get to '59' I have to drop to the 34 ring and move back down to the #3 cog, very awkward.


Could you not replace the 34 with a 36 to reduce the ratio jump when shifting the front? Possibly make a cassette change to take care of your lowest gear needs?

Al

So when I got the Road bike-I got a triple 52/42/30 and 12/26. Took it up the 20% hill afew weeks ago and into a stiff headwind. That 30 /26 was used for most of it. At the other end- I rarely get into the 52. We have those rolling hills and lots of short sharp rises and not a great deal of flat stuff to get into.

I think you have to look at your terrain- look at your body strength and decide which way you want to go. Hate to say it but at my age- on our hills- There is no shame in me taking my granny out for a ride. That way I do not have to push the bike up the STEEP hills- which last year I saw several roadies with 53/42 and small rear cassettes doing.

I assume that you are in the Granny (30) and the biggest cog (26) in the cassette. How long is that 20% climb and for how much of it did you have to stand?

Could you not replace the 34 with a 36 to reduce the ratio jump when shifting the front? Possibly make a cassette change to take care of your lowest gear needs?
Al
thought of that - goin with a 36 means I now shift on 62" and that would save a jump by only having to double shift down to the #4 cog at 55" (and skip the 60" cog at #3). But then the lowest gear is 41", and I'd hate to give up the 38" low - I use it an awful lot these days - 3" inches doesn;t sound like much, but where the rubber meets the road it a big diff.
If I go 9 spd cassette, with 13-25, then I get the 38" back. That then means at least 2 new righthand STI brifters to replace the 8 spd stuff. Gonna try it, a new 9 spd 13-25 cassette, on the one bike with a 9 spd brifter and see if it helps/makes a diff. before I jump in for a bunch of new Brifters.

Doesn't bother me. Notice what his name translates to?

I seem to have all the different cranks over the past year!! I rode a 52/42/30 triple the last 4 years. It is a very good setup and allows you to have one bike that does it all.

This year I bought a different bike with a 53/39 double and I'm finding it's excellent for rolling terrain and a very good training setup. With the 53/39, it forces me to use a little harder gear than I'd like which helps to strengthen my legs and better prepare them for climbing rides. The 39 being slightly easier than the 42 helps me on some routes around my house that have little steeper and longer hills.

I changed the triple on my original bike to a 50/34 compact several months ago. With having ridden the Compact a good bit this year, if I were to just have one setup it would be the 50/34. It saves some weight. Then there's the better utilization of the gears. While it has fewer total gears than a triple, you have a pretty large duplication of gears on a triple so the Compact allows you to have just what you need. Better utilization of the gears you have is probably what I'm driving at. You can still get the same range of gears on a Compact as a triple by selecting a cassette and derailleur that provides that range. I also happen to think a Compact Crank looks better than a triple. Just a cleaner, simpler look.......

The 50 is a perfect gear for general purpose use. Like some others, I stay in the 50 most of the time on rolling terrain. There are times when I might "spin out" on a 50/12 but usually it's with a large group and they just wind up sucking me along anyway......If I'm out on my own a 50/12 is plenty of gear on the high end for me.

The Shimano R700 seems to have solved some of the shifting issues the first Compact Cranks had as it performs very well. While there's a need to "double shift" with the Compact, it's become second nature to me but I was actually already doing that most of the time with the triple when shifting gears on the chainring.

Just my opinion but if I had a bike with a triple, I couldn't justify the expense of going to a Compact (even though I did) but I wouldn't consider anything else if I were purchasing a new road bike (except a Time Trial bike).

Hi Stapfam! Sorry we couldn't get together. I'm back in Florida now. BTW, where is there a 20% on-road hill around the Downs?

[QUOTE=jppe]The Shimano R700 seems to have solved some of the shifting issues the first Compact Cranks had as it performs very well. While there's a need to "double shift" with the Compact, it's become second nature to me but I was actually already doing that most of the time with the triple when shifting gears on the chainring.

I agree with jppe, I have a full Ultegra groupo and all I had to do was replace my 53-39 with the R700. I use the same front derailleur and have had no technical issues shifting. The only thing I had to do was shorten the chain and drop the derailleur down a little, everything else is compatible.

Forget the concept that one "needs" or doesn't "need" a triple. A triple is downright practical and you should want one, not need one. Here's what you get with a triple.

1. A ideally sized middle chain ring for us "mature folks." I can take my 42 tooth middle ring from 8 mph to 25 mph which is about my range. And it leaves two more rings for more extreme situations. Even a racer could hit 40 mph with the larger 52 tooth ring.

2. A smaller climbing ring that will allow you to climb at a higher and more efficient cadence than the small ring on a double.

3. Virtually the same weight. The difference is around 70 or 80 grams.

I've read some negative things about Shimano triples but I've never had one and can't comment. They may or may not be true. I've had several Campy triples and they are simply spectacular in every sense. I doubt you would get Campy with a Trek. Perhaps others can comment on the Shimano triples.

My lightest bike has a compact double. My heaviest current technology bike weighs a full 5 lbs. more and has a triple. I ride it about 1/2 mph faster on average than the lighter bike with the double. Why? That great middle ring and the overall higher cadence at which I pedal with it.

My own opinion is that all but racers should have triple chainrings. The trend, though, is for compact doubles to replace them. I'm not sure it is the best way to go.

[QUOTE=jppe]I agree with jppe, I have a full Ultegra groupo and all I had to do was replace my 53-39 with the R700. I use the same front derailleur and have had no technical issues shifting. The only thing I had to do was shorten the chain and drop the derailleur down a little, everything else is compatible.

+1. I have the Ultegra group with R700 on the Merlin and it is superb. The Ultegra triple feels awkward in comparison.

You will like the compact setup. The only thing not available is the very top end of a 53 chainring. I just want to finish, not get there first so it matters not. Have a Ritchey WCS compact on my Quintana Roo and it works great. 12-26 rear cassette, 9 speed. Good luck.

I assume that you are in the Granny (30) and the biggest cog (26) in the cassette. How long is that 20% climb and for how much of it did you have to stand?

This particular hill is .9 of a mile and is an average of 20% due to a very steep bit at the start. Cheats a bit as there is a fast approach to this 25% bit. I get myself in granny before the hill and Just go down the gears. The final part of this hill is about 200 yards and is probably around 15%. When the wind hit me, I actually got down in the drops. Stayed seated till the wind really hit me on the last 50yards. Then it was on the hoods and stand. On reflection- I probably stood on the steep bit, but I find that I do stand frequently if I want to increase speed a bit. As soon as I have speed again- I sit down.

While I agree in principle, those principles go right out the window when I am tackling Mt. Mofo on my fully loaded touring bike. :eek: :D

I used to have a touring bike with just a double chainring. Rather than give up low gears, I gave up high gears. I think my top combo was about a 90 instead of 100. I never missed it. If I was going fast enough to be pushing a gear over 90, I was obviously going downhill anyway and it was time to coast. ;)

Had a 52/40 crankset on the old Raleigh and switched it to 50/34 compact and the bike really came alive for me. North Central WV here, and there are VERY few places around here I could ever use 53/12 if at all, so I didn't lose a thing on the top end and it sure is a lot easier to spin on the hills now. For me, and I think that is the important qualifier, it is the best thing I ever did to that bike. Just my incoherent ramblings.

Duhhuh's signature:

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --General George S. Patton

Won't speculate about the French mind, but I've seem some pretty cute French behinds.

[QUOTE=jppe]
if I were to just have one setup it would be the 50/34. It saves some weight. Then there's the better utilization of the gears. While it has fewer total gears than a triple, you have a pretty large duplication of gears on a triple so the Compact allows you to have just what you need. Better utilization of the gears you have is probably what I'm driving at. You can still get the same range of gears on a Compact as a triple by selecting a cassette and derailleur that provides that range. I also happen to think a Compact Crank looks better than a triple. Just a cleaner, simpler look.......

The 50 is a perfect gear for general purpose use. Like some others, I stay in the 50 most of the time on rolling terrain. There are times when I might "spin out" on a 50/12 but usually it's with a large group and they just wind up sucking me along anyway......If I'm out on my own a 50/12 is plenty of gear on the high end for me.
QUOTE]

jppe:
I will be buying a Madone or Litespeed soon. I do not want to go through your learning curve. I had a tough time on some 15% hills with my 39/32 set up on my double ring 53/39 and 32/11 cassette.
Which Compact arrangement would you recommend, please?

jppe:
I will be buying a Madone or Litespeed soon. I do not want to go through your learning curve. I had a tough time on some 15% hills with my 39/32 set up on my double ring 53/39 and 32/11 cassette.
Which Compact arrangement would you recommend, please?

Why compact? It doesn't match your needs. If you're buying a madone or litespeed you want to be able to keep your energy/cadence going as you change speeds. Any cassette larger than a 12-27 will not allow you to do this without a painful increase in effort and a drop in speed on each shift. Maintaining speed is much more important than the 80 grams of weight a triple adds.

Which litespeed are you thinking of?

FYI the ideal drive train would be something like 12:23 X 25.38.53. However shamino doesn't handle a rear gap of 48 teeth, 45 is the max. Thus the best currently available drive train combo is something like 12:23 X 27.39.53. Currently using 28.42.54. The 28 is not low enough for steep hills with 12:27. The 54 is overkill on the top end. 52 was too low. The 42 was just default and better range of gears is offered by the 39.

To speak GI [gear inches], the 27x39 gives 33 GI. The 27x27 gives 23 GI, almost low enough. The 27x28 gives 24 GI. A 11:32x30 gives 25 GI.

Then there's the better utilization of the gears. While it has fewer total gears than a triple, you have a pretty large duplication of gears on a triple so the Compact allows you to have just what you need. Better utilization of the gears you have is probably what I'm driving at.

More efficient utilization of gears maybe, but not necessarily better. The biggest drawback I see with a compact double vs. a triple is the lack of duplicate gears. When I get in a situation with my compact where I am using gears at the high end of the small ring or low end of the large ring, I miss having the ability to stay in one ring or the other and change up or down a gear or two. The gear I need is there, but I have to shift front and a few cogs in back to get to it.

I do like the compact, but I see this characteristic as a drawback, not a strength.

All of you know more than I do. That is jppe, HiYoSilver and BluesDawg. I can ask my LBS and I am afraid they make a commercial decision such as what they happen to have in stock or which has a higher profit margin.
I have a triple on my Hybrid and that works fine. I agree that the extra weight does not matter to me. The argument would be smoother shifting if that is a valid argument?
I did hear much discussion on the cross country tour about Compacts. I must truthfully report that the guy who talked the most about it had the most bike trouble. The Litespeeds I had side by side with me had triples. The Orbea guy had triple. I had double and ran out of gears going up mountains. Should I cut my losses and go triple?

Who needs a 53 ring if you're running an 11 cog....or even a 12?
Cippolini.

Will-what I like about the 50/34 is that I can use different cassettes depending on the terrain I'm riding in. I did need to install a mountain bike rear derailleur to give me the full range of gears I wanted for the steeper mountain climbs but it works just fine. To do that, you do need to go to a 9 speed setup instead of 10 speeds as I don't think there is any 10 speed mtn bike stuff out yet.

For the mountain rides I use a 11-34 cassette, Incidentially it provides a harder gear than a 52/12 and a slightly easier gear than a 30/27-as this is the gearing that I was using on my triple.

I originally started with a 50/34 and a 12/27 rear cassette which is a great, all-around setup. I did a couple thousand miles on this setup and did okay. However, I don't have that much leg strength or power and needed a little easier gear for getting up the really steep climbs, especially when the climbs are 70+ miles into a ride. My cadence was dropping to the mid 50's and my knees began to give me some issues. So, I replaced the Dura-Ace rear derailleur with a Deore XT rear derailleur and installed the mountain bike rear cassette. I'm probably a little slower going up the hills but it is saving my knees.

Since I ride the Madone (53/39 double) around the house where have mostly rolling terrain, I have not used the 5900 with the 50/34 as much around the house. When I do, I usually change the cassette to a 12/25.

I would suggest looking at different gear-inch tables to see what set-up would work best for you. A triple is a terrific arrangement-especially if you want 10 speed and want the easier gears. The middle chain ring can be great to have for headwinds or less steep hills. I've had both and now prefer the Compact.

I'm amazed you did the XC on the 53/39 with some of the climbs in the early days....

It isn't as simple as choose a compact double or a triple. It's more which cassette and which rings should you get. The standard 30.42.52 triple does not offer the best drive train options.

Variable that effect the double or triple decision:

1. average number of watts rider can produce. [some web site will calc this for you.]
2. number of hills you will be riding
3. steepness and length of hills
4. total vehicle weight: bike, rider, accessories
5. average winds in your riding area
6. how often you want to change drivetrain components, such as cassettes
7. how well your legs adjust to large changes in resistance, i.e. large gear changes
8. are you a spinner or a masher?

Some will be ideal compact double candidates because they are at one end of these 8 variables, others will have to be triple riders because they are at the other end. My rule of thumb is: if in doubt and not racing, go for the triple. It is much easier to not use a gear than to walk the bike up a hill or blow out your legs because you can't maintain a cadence of 80+.

I'm amazed you did the XC on the 53/39 with some of the climbs in the early days....

jppe:
I am impressed by your experience and feel free to talk to you. There was an incline they called the "Wall".
It was a road from one tectonic plate to another at well over 15 degrees. Only pure will power prevented me from walking my bike, enhanced by the tour leader waiting to catch this event on a camera.:D
Worse than that, on many long hills, I was not in an efficient cadence range. So everybody with triples dropped me. These are bikers I can drop with ease on rolling terrain.
I do not want to go on another tour with that problem. That is the reason fot this thread.

Cippolini.

Thank you!...:D

Will,
The more I read your responses the more I'm thinking you would be happier with a triple. To hedge the bet, get a triple with 110 BCD so you can use a wider variety of chainrings on it. In fact it would be possible to put 34 and 50 rings on it, removing the inner ring, so you could go from compact double to triple with the same crank and a change of bottom brackets. I know this works, because my compact is a Sugino XD set up just that way.

My rule of thumb is: if in doubt and not racing, go for the triple. It is much easier to not use a gear than to walk the bike up a hill or blow out your legs because you can't maintain a cadence of 80+.

Assuming that it will take me ten years to learn what you guys know, triple it is.
Going from Sedona to Flagstaff could not be done at cadence of 80+ with 39-32 gears, at least not by bikers like me with 190+ lbs and a 25 lbs bike.
Going up the "wall" could not be done either. The triple guys and girls were doing OK. But some had triples with worse gear ratio's than my double. So I got to watch that as BluesDawg is suggesting.

Compact gearing is simply cyclocross gearing and has been around for a "long" time. The problem was the difficulty with freewheels having a small enough first cog to get enough gear inches to use the smaller chainrings on a road bike. In the early 80's it became possible to get 12 tooth freewheel cogs and Shimano came out with an 11 tooth cassette cog (I then began using using 34x48, 36x48, & 36x50 chainring combinations and 11x21 - 25 cassettes - I even raced for a while with 39x44 chainrings and a 11x23 cassette - the 108" gear was a bit lacking on some descents but OK otherwise and I was younger and riding a bunch so I could get by with the 39 tooth small chainring).

As I've gotten older I've continued to run 'cross gearing and/or triples on my fast road bikes. However, it's important to note that compacts or triples are only half the drivetrain. It's critical to select a cassette which complements the chainrings so that you customize the total gearing range to the terrain where you ride the most. Either a double (Compact or traditional) or triple can be enhanced or compromised by poor cassette choices.

As to the compact versus triple weight & shifting questions: the weight difference for a triple is negligible (A few mm of bottom bracket spindle, four aluminum bolts, a small aluminum chainring, a bit longer rear derailleur cage, and a few links of chain - maybe a quarter pound), and the performance of modern shifters and derailleurs for doubles & triples is equally good. So such arguments shouldn't influence the final decision for most cyclists.

The question is simple: Do you sometimes need a bail-out gear? If it's "yes", run a triple. Otherwise a double - traditional or compact - should fit the bill.

To make a short story long, the argument should be about each cyclist's individual gearing needs and what chainring/cassette combination achieves that.

Assuming that it will take me ten years to learn what you guys know, triple it is.
Going from Sedona to Flagstaff could not be done at cadence of 80+ with 39-32 gears, at least not by bikers like me with 190+ lbs and a 25 lbs bike.
Going up the "wall" could not be done either. The triple guys and girls were doing OK. But some had triples with worse gear ratio's than my double. So I got to watch that as BluesDawg is suggesting.

You cannot go wrong with a triple. Plus, you have the advantage of going 10 speed plus have a nice easy gear you can now spin up those 15% grades. I hope I can get in a financial position to do a XC tour one day. The only way I could do it today is to get some financial sponsors. I have not explored that option but that is always a possibility. I'd probably ride the Madone but would change the chainring from a 53/39 to a 50/34. I might even flip the step and make it slightly more upright knowing that I'd be bent over for so many consecutive days.

You cannot go wrong with a triple. Plus, you have the advantage of going 10 speed plus have a nice easy gear you can now spin up those 15% grades. I hope I can get in a financial position to do a XC tour one day. The only way I could do it today is to get some financial sponsors. I have not explored that option but that is always a possibility. I'd probably ride the Madone but would change the chainring from a 53/39 to a 50/34. I might even flip the step and make it slightly more upright knowing that I'd be bent over for so many consecutive days.

I learned a lot from this thread.
We have very few if any road bikers in this area. The Bf is my source of this kind of information.:)

I ended up buying a Trek 1600 (10-speed cassette) with a triple. I can go much faster on the flats and downhill I can keep spinning longer. Even though I am getting stronger and tend to stay on the large chainring I have also been glad to have the triple with its small chainring for some particularly steep hill or when there is a headwind on a hill.

I think my experiment with the compact double is about to end. I just haven't come to the point that I don't have to think too much about the transition from big ring to small ring and back. I think the 30-40-50 triple works better for me. I like the duplicate ratios.

A few weeks ago I bonked big time. Shoulda taken more food, stopped to refill the bottles, not had a long crappy week before, not hung with the 30 year olds, shoulda,shoulda, etc. Still had two long climbs to go before 20 miles to my driveway. I don't go to the granny often, but I could have kissed it that day as I slow motion spun up those hills in, I blurrily remember, a 30 inch gear-- and would have gone lower if there'd been a 3rd hill. Just one reason not to dismiss a triple. Campy Centaur shifters (and presumably STI, too) make front shifting over 3 rings a dependable no brainer. My Sugino crank with 110 BCD also allows me to dial in my gearing with so many more chain ring sizes than Shimano's 130.