I rode a standard double for years, refused to switch to compact mainly due to pride. I now believe that had I made the switch I could have avoided the majority of my knee surgeries and be much happy / healthier / faster now than I am now.

...though probably not for the better.

Yes, I am. Biking has become my new addiction since I sold my track car for a Forester to become "the family man." Waiting for the next STI ... thank goodness I still have my wife's WRX, though she won't let me track it.

Thanks for the input on the gearing.

Thanks for all the replies so far. The information and first hand experience is greatly appreciated.

I thought about that but I've read some people having issues with Di2 and non-Shimano chain rings - so I'm a little hesitant to stray as the shifting is so crisp and beautiful with Di2.

I've already got one. So far my average cadence is around 88-92 for most rides, with max consistently around 115-120. I seem most comfortable around 90-95. I'm also generally fine with 70-80 on the hills, though I agree that on the longer ones I've become accustomed to spinning at a more. I do still have my old Specialized bike with a compact.

My next training tool will likely be a PowerTap G3 at some point but I don't think I can quite justify it at my level yet.

Thank you.

Really? I figured a standard would let me work on top end sprinting a bit more, as I definitely find it hard to stand at 50/11 @ 110-120rpm. I feel almost positive that I could eek out some more speed in those sections of my ride if I could just drop my cadence a bit. Also, looking at the gearing charts, a 39/25 should require more effort than 34/23, no? While I'm not suggesting that it is a replacement for weight training in the off-season, wouldn't the more spaced out gearing force you to become stronger, assuming an 53/11-25 or 53/11-23?

I definitely appreciate the input.

I must admit I have read that a lot of experienced racers have been having good success with compacts. Thanks for the info. Out of curiosity, what sort of climbs do you have in your area?

I should mention to that I did order a standard crankset a couple nights ago while researching all of this. Admittedly, sort of an impulse buy, which I'm hoping won't be a mistake. I do have my old bike with a compact but I really want to give a standard a try this season on my new bike (which I purchased with a compact.)

We have a lot climbs that hit 15% - 20% with the occasional 25% segment. They usually average around 10% - 12% for a mile or so.

These threads make me so happy for my triple. I still have my 53/39 rings just like a standard, and my gearing is just as low with a 12-23 cassette as a compact with a 12-27. And best of all, my gears are close together and so the jumps are short.

A triple with a tight cassette is the solution to all of these debates. It is the best of both worlds--standard, tight gearing with the low range of a compact.

If you say so. Most of us have had triples, I know I have and I have no intention of ever owning another one.

I've also had two triples - call me slow to learn because I thought the second would be different than the first. But I have no intention of ever going back.

Forgot to add, post pics of the bike! lol

When my legs are tired, I really miss my 34-26 on climbs that hit steep sections of low 20% grades... and I'm pretty light and can climb less slow then others.

I've ridden standard before, and I like how it has all the options on a very fast descent, but I don't notice much difference on my 50/34. as stated before, I also spend time a little bit on the smaller cogs but on climbs i love the smaller 34T, especially on those really long, lengthy hills. On climbs though, I never really ran out on a 53/39 mainly because we just have rolling farmland here and not too many are steep enough to run me out of gears.

Ah, sounds ... punishing. I don't think I've found a 20% grade around here yet. So far the max I've hit is 16% for only maybe 50ft, with most 8%-12% portions of the hills lasting only 200-300ft perhaps. Most of our long hills (1km+) are 4-5% with the occasional increase to 6-7%, which is why I'm hopeful that a 53/39 shouldn't pose too much of a challenge.

I'm dying to see if moving to a standard reduces the constant shifting of the front ring in the rolling hill areas of my rides. I do agree that I could probably stay with a compact and adjust my riding style, but the lure of the longer 39 ring just has me wondering if it would be better for my routes. I guess we shall see.

Will do. It's being setup by the shop at the moment but I'll post pics as soon as I get it. I had an '11 Madone 6.9 but had Trek warranty it for numerous paint issues - they ended up giving me a '12 and from what I've seen of it so far, the paint is so much better. Trek really stood by their product - great company from my perspective.

I was just reading through this thread and I came up with the same conclusion: if you don't want to change the front chainring often, get a triple.

My primary bike was a triple (cyclocross bike) for 2-1/2 years. I stayed on the middle ring 90% of the time. Mind you, most of my riding was fairly flat.

Since I've upgraded my bike to a compact double, I've had to re-learn shifting, and that involves the left hand/front ring as well as the right/rear. Even when riding in flat areas, I'll shift around when I have to stop at a light/start from a dead stop. Only once did I feel like I ran out of easy gears, and that was on a very tough hill of a Tour, some 45 miles in, right after a sag stop (I'll say that's a rider/training issue, I went back and did that hill again without issue). I haven't yet run out of gears while going downhill.

Nice spreadsheet. Thanks for making it available.

Why not? Seems like a fine solution. [But] I don't ride triples because of adjustment issues.

I haven't found anything I can't ride with my compact double, and this is coming from a fat guy.

I have a SD on one bike with 12-25. My compact is 50/34 with an 11-23. Basically the same I don't see a huge difference except rarely use the small ring on the compact. I live in Illinois so flat but never have run out or needed the 34/23. I have wished once or twice in a huge tailwind and downhill I had an 11 on the standard. For the record my top speed ever is on the compact 39.7. I would probably go with a standard if I replaced the compact but if I was making a mountain trip I might need to swap the rear to an 11-28

I guess I get confused on the blow out the knees on a standard crank argument, because don't you end up pushing the same gear inches for a given speed and cadence? On my compact, I am usually in the middle to small end of the cassette. On the standard, I am in the middle to larger end. How is one any more taxing than the other?

Also, in full disclosure, my compact is a 50/36.. for a year I used a 50/34 and hated the 16 tooth jump. It was just too big of a jump and involved lots of strange shifting to not go spinning off like a top. That was when I spent all of my time in the big ring.

How much weigh Lowcel if you don't mind. I am runner too but cannot get below 173 at almost 6'2. My brother deacons think in thin and runners think I am a big. Cyclist I don't know.

With a lot of the climbs around here I have a cadence of 45 - 55 with my 34/27. If I had a standard with a 27 my cadence would be a good bit lower putting even more pressure on my knees.

I am around 212, down from 265. Prior to knee surgeries I went between 163 and 173.

I've always said I'd rather have a standard than a compact. At least I wouldn't lose my 39 ring. It's definitely got more useful range than either 34 or 50 for me.

"Most of us have had triples" sounds like they're the devil. If none of you need low gears, why are you rolling around with 11-28 on your compacts? Something tells me that it isn't weight or the usefulness of your compact, but rather, some personal pride issue regarding a third ring.

And for the record...34x28 is a lower gear than any I've ever had on any bike...and both of mine have triples.

120RPM is over 68kph. There aren't many sprints that end at that speed.

You aren't going to reach those speeds unless you're going downhill, in which case you may as well just tuck and stop pedalling. If it's a group ride or a race, you're unlikely to be dropped on a downhill section unless it's technical, in which case the speed won't be as important.

It will result in a slightly lower cadence but you won't magically gain power or go up a hill faster because you choose a higher gear. If you think that riding in bigger gears will make you stronger you could just do all your rides in one bigger gear on your compact. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

no.

Makes sense. I was rather surprised at how much I gained on the low end by going from 12-25 to 11-30 in back on my compact. My cross bike is 12-25 and I mistakenly took a 5% grade route to work and thought I was riding through gravel until the cassette occurred to me

BTW, great job on the weight. I am 200 down from 245 and it feels great.

Standard vs compact doesn't make a big difference IMO. With a standard and a big cassette in the back, you can pretty much get a gearing similar to compact. Or you can go compact and use 11-21.

If going compact is going to cost you a decent amount of $$$, and there's other improvements on the bike you could spend money on, I'd think twice about going compact. Having a climbing cassette is worth it anyhow, why not try that first? It's cheaper.