Originally Posted by
American Euchre
50/34 has all sorts of problems. The lower gearing is far more inviting for beginners and out of shape folk who want a road bike compared to 53/42 or 39, so I understand the logic behind it for marketing purposes. But once you get out on a flat road, running out of gears on 34 or dealing with larger gaps between cogs on the 50, can get frustrating.
Also, I find the 50 ring significantly noisier than the 34, which is a bit annoying as well. I've gotten used to it, but the silence of the 34 ring is quite appealing.
I'm totally with you on this. My bikes have triples not because I need the granny ring (I rarely ever use it) but rather because I wouldn't want to give up the middle ring. I can take off from a stop sign in the middle ring and shift all the way down the cassette on both of my bikes and always have the perfect gear, and they're nicely spaced. If I go down hill or if I'm riding near the bottom of the cassette at cruising speed, I can go up to my bigger ring. On a compact, I find myself constantly between rings, and all of the gears are further apart.
Make fun of me if you want to--while 53/39 isn't enough for me when climbing (and so I'm happy to have the 30 gear if needed), the one ring I refuse to give up is the 39 ring, and so to get both--to have the 39 and gears to climb, triple it is for me.
If someday I find myself absolutely never needing the 30 ring, I'd run a 53/39. But the compact crankset just isn't for me.