Peter_B got some very interesting bikes.

The last time I rode around with no shame and no humility I almost got arrested for indecency (just joking...or am I????). Bravo on riding anywhere you damn well please though :).

This is really my reasoning in switching. The simplicity of switching on a double crankset makes more sense to me than a triple - maybe I'm too used to riding road style, but I found that only my triple (w/an 11-28 in the back), I mostly stayed in the middle ring, shifted high on hills, and only went into the triple once in a blue moon when I met a really steep hill (while dog-tired, with a lot of stuff in my panniers). Also, a double FD is more natural and responsive - not only is it just simpler mentally (just "shift all the way up" or "all the way down"), but a double FD travels further with less cable pull.

And in fact, a chainring bolt on my granny did come loose during a ride. Couldn't figure out what was causing such resistance in my pedaling until I had rubbed a few flecks of paint off the stays :(

Pardon a noobish question but what exactly is meant by a "compact double"?

I have a Stronglight 93 52/38 that I'm thinking of dropping to 50/38. It can't go any lower than 38 with 122 BCP, but I got around Germany and Luxembourg with it okay with a 14-28 freewheel back in the early 80s.

I'm torn about the whole compact crank thing. But also a lesser man than BBM, and as such unable to stick a triple on my roadies.

Currently trying out a compact (again) on my Merckx w 8 speed Campy. And it is just because of this 2 mile very steep hill on my favorite ride that really rips the cartilage out of the knees.

But in a touring realm a triple is a must. Why not? Everything is already so damn heavy.

A typical road gearing for a crankset is around 52t/(42t-39t). A typical triple crankset might be 48/36/28. These are usually run with freewheel/cassettes around the 13-28 or so range.

A compact double usually runs more around 50/34 (16 teeth spread usually?), and is often run with wide cassettes (11-32). This way, you get the range of a triple crankset with a double front crankset. The reasons for wanting a double as opposed to a triple tend to vary for different people, but they're usually something like "it's simpler and lighter".

It has been my experience that I've seen very few companies that make triple cranks anymore on road bikes. The compact double has replaced the triple you used to see on a bikes lines lower end skinny legged hill climber version. I haven't seen any modern triples other than the Sugino for a while.

True. Maybe for a true long distance tour (month or longer), I might stick a triple on there just for utility's sake. But for 99% of my riding, including commuting, light touring, and weekend bike camping, I don't know if I need the range of a triple if I have such wide gearing in the back.

And personally, I like just having two settings on my left friction shifter :P.

Steep, I do know steep. I ride my yellow Grandis Max with its photo above near daily on climbs on La Jolla's Mount Soledad in San Diego, with some climbs being 15% and 20%. Low gear for the knees, high gear to bomb the downhills.

I set up my gears with 48/36 looooong ago, and eventually changed it to 48/34. My reason for dropping the 52 to 48 at all was because I never used the small cog (on a 14-28 5-speed freewheel). I dropped the 36 to 34 more recently was because I was steep hitting hills late in a long rides.

I think so with mountain bikes where you want to minimize shifting the front derailleur and stick to shifting the rear derailleur, but touring, I dunno, these days. I'm on the cusp. I've credit card cycle toured on that Mondia with double chainrings and a seven speed freewheel, and with more gears in the rear, I could easily use a double for fully loaded touring. My non-C&V Raleigh Sojourn touring bike that I have used for fully loaded cycle camping came with a triple, so I use it. I could get the same gear range with a double, easily get by with less gears in number, and it would be simpler to use. I will convert it one of these days. Back in the days of triple cranksets and five speed freewheels, I cycle toured / camped extensively. I had maybe 12-13 usable gears and so did everyone, and we thought that was a lot of gears . With a nine speed wide range cassette on a triple crankset, do I really need about 23 or so usable gears... for cycle touring? It isn't a time trial with fine tuning of cadence/effort.

I have both my wife's and my own bikes set up with compact doubles now, a Sugino on her Panasonic and a Campy Centaur on my gitane. The gearing is ideal for me since I live at the base of some hills.

Campagnolo and Shimano make triples. I have 10 speed triples on all my road bikes.

I have one bike (the Ciocc) that has a compact double on it. Riding it, I have climbed the steepest grades we have to offer - so that's not really an issue. What is an issue is the increased frequency of double shifting. It is a comparative pain in the ass as opposed to the triple that I know and love.

The triple, at 53/42/30, is more or less a standard double with bailout gears in case I need them. The majority of my riding is using the middle ring, and shifting up and down the back as needed. It suits me and the way I ride the local terrain. I use the big ring about a third of the time, and the bail-outs much less frequently. But when I need them, I REALLY need them. So I keep them around.

I missed the touring bike part... I run a 34-50 compact crankset with a 14-25 rear cassette, I don't race yet, but I'm gearing up for it. In my highest gear at a 90 cadence, I'd be going around 26 miles per hour... Too low for a lot of people, but if your on a touring bike I don't see a problem with it.

dashuaigeh, I bought a complete bike once just for the frameset, too late in the year to order one in that paint scheme. It came with a 7S compact double and at first I thought the compact double was a neat idea, but for me it was 'just not right' after some miles had passed. I selected that frame set to cope with my knee injury and mulled about a road triple, a compact double and even a mountain bike type group. I went with the road triple and an 8S. Honestly it did look a bit odd to me at first, but my knee loves it. :) While my knee is much better I still choose that bike when going on long rides just in case...

With a 9S or more rear gearing a compact double may make more sense as I like a close ratio rear. I came close to trying a compact double on a recent mini build of my 3.0, but just couldn't do it.

Brad

I have a 52/42/30 on my main ride and never (and I mean NEVER) use the big ring, and have only used the small ring once or twice. I think a 44/36 would be perfect for me...but not easy to find, I would end up buying a crankset and then replacing the rings, and decent rings aren't cheap.

What range do you have in the back?

I run 50-34 with a 10 speed cassette on my bianchi. The big cog in the rear is a 29 because that's the largest i could run with a mid length campy rear mech. I really like the setup and it's great for any type of hills I have in my area so long as I'm not all loaded up with a bunch of extra weight (not fat, but like touring digs).

It would make a nice rando bike.

Right now I'm setting up my Carlton with a TA cyclotourist with 48/34 rings and a 5 speed 13-34 freewheel in the rear. I'm building it geared a little lower because I'd basically like to for all intents and purposes to replace riding my touring bike when I want to be lazy and I want to be able to comfortably carry a load up hills with it all day long should I need to.

I might spin it out in the 48/13 but we'll see. I can't imagine that happening often enough that I'd care.

I really like compact setups especially in an indexed system because I personally hate getting an indexed triple to shift perfectly with no rubbing. Plus there is a weight savings, the simplicity of less parts, and having more efficient usable gearing. A triple has a lot of gearing options that I never use.

Yep, me too. That's my biggest beef with a triple, especially since the additional weight doesn't normally amount to much. I guess that means I need to improve my wrenching skills...or be more patient.

yeah or say eff it and either go friction in the front, or put in a compact. I'd rather be riding then screwing with getting a brifter/ergo/whatever to shift a triple perfectly.

Please tell me where I can find a 38t 122BCD ring for my 93!

hold off until winter. TA is re-issuing their cyclotouriste crankset. no need to buy a replica.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boxdogbikes/5017153026/

I've had issues getting lower end Shimano triples set up right, but never with a Campagnolo triple. They adjust right up.

That might be my problem. The one indexed triple I've had the most problems with is Sora on my wife's Trek 1000. We have Truvative cranks with a 105 FD on our Cannondale tandem and it was definitely easier.

Or you could get a Tiagra FD. You'll see them being used on most modern touring bikes with 135 rear because they having a wider cage to accommodate the additional chain swing. They are also rather inexpensive.