One size does not fit all. Some commute on flats, some commutes have long climbs or multiple shorter climbs.

Also, most commuters are dealing with lots of stop lights and stop signs. Assuming you do actually stop at lights and signs, getting back up to speed starting in the 50 ring is not exactly ideal. Let's say you're cruising along at 17 mph on the flats in 50xwhatever, now you have to downshift several gears approaching the stop. Then you start back up, reversing the process.

If you downshift to 34 approaching a stop, then you have to shift back up to 50 after the stop.

Let's say you don't downshift at all. Now you have to stand and grind out a big gear to get back up to speed--which is really hard on your knees.

This yo yo process is a pain in the ass. A middle chainring of 39 is much better than a 50 or 34 in my opinion. Even a single ring 42 or 44 might be better than 50 or 34.

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 think a wide range 1 X 13 speed, or triple with existing 8-11 speed, makes more sense for both commuters and road riders than a 50/34. Triples are seen as uncool and cost more and 13 speeds aren't around yet, so everyone just works with various compromises.

Oddly, sram has decided to try to sell their single ring system for $1500+, despite dropping a chainring, and the left brifter: save manufacturing costs and increase price--makes sense for them, not the customer.

I am a heavy load. ;)

Obviously I can get the bike going with 50T ring and any of the bigger cogs. I just don't like it and would prefer to start out in a lower gear. I don't think "just deal with it" is a good solution to most problems, especially not when better alternatives are readily available.

Once again, what I'm saying is that 50T isn't a good ring size if the plan is to use it for most everything and 34T isn't a good ring size for a bailout gear.

:deadhorse:

Funny thing is, on my "commute preview" ride last Sunday, I forgot to downshift from the 50T to the 34T on my crankset before stopping at a left turn stoplight. So when the light turned green, there was an embarrassing delay as I struggled to start rolling on my 50T. The driver behind me didn't honk but just passed me - I think shifting my bike to the right side of the lane helped there.

I'm not enough of a stud to start from a dead stop on a 50T. Well, I'd rather not do it on the road with cars behind me, anyway. :p. Nobody is going to give me a medal for starting from a dead stop at a road intersection with my chain on the 50T - they're more likely to give me grief instead. It doesn't take that long to start rolling on the 34T and work my way up to the 50T anyway.

Well, yeah, that was my point earlier. I think most commuters would be better served with a 39 middle ring, or a 42 or 44 ring. You can ride on the flats in that ring, and only shift down a couple of gears for stops to get rolling again.

In a 50, you have to downshift a handful of gears or downshift to the small ring. Compared to a 39, you're more likely to be close to the lowest cog, possibly cross chaining or having to shift down to the small ring. It's doable, but less convenient.

The 50/34 is optimal for no one it seems. The only widely spec'ed alternative option is the mid compact, 52/36, which is usually geared towards "race bikes" rather than endurance models. These are also more likely therefore to have tighter ratios with a 11-25 or 28, so you lose 2 or 3 climbing gears as well.

Fortunately, many hybrids and street bikes, esp. at the lower end, still have triples.

Why does one need to shift down a 'handful' of gears when riding with a 50 but only need to shift a couple of gears with a 42. Seems like it should be the same.

I think one should choose the big ring size so you spend most of the time in the middle of the rear cassette. For me, and many others, the 50 works well for that purpose.

Let me rephrase my concern: you are in a lower cog when in a 50 compared to 42 or 39 (at the same speed), therefore, more likely to run out of gears when downshifting in coming to a stop so you can start up again comfortably.

This means you are more likely to be either cross chained or forced to downshift to the smaller ring. Workable but less than ideal. Neither is likely to happen with a 42 or 39.

I'm comfortable starting from 50-19/21 and would never drop down to a 39 or 34 to start. I like to stand up when starting. It's easier to clip in and feels good.

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.

Triples date back to 5-speed freewheels and friction shifters. Off-road and tour bikes with dated freewheel technology is where you can expect to see them now but not on modern alloy road bikes that I aimed at the largest segment of the bike market that is more interested in getting a new bike of the highest quality for the least investment with zero desire to own a remuda of steeds...

Did my first commute ride on the Renegade. I used the 50T and the 34T fairly evenly.

I clearly need more experience riding a derailleur drivetrain to learn why my crankset sucks ;). Once in a while I heard ugly noises from the chain due to my crappy shifting.

Seriously though it's been great reading posts from the more experienced riders.

I have explained the shortcomings of compact doubles to my wife, sister, and 2 co-workers. All had this 'AH-HA' moment where they interrupted and starting going on and on about how they too often find themselves with a cadence that is too slow or too fast(depending on the ring they are in).
If they had a triple, they could ride a middle ring thats 38-42T and spin with a confortable cadence. They could also have better bailout gearing when needed with a triple.

Is gearing that is constantly either too high or too low really 'the highest quality'? Sure it can be made well, but I would argue compact doubles often times arent close to the best tool for the job so they then also arent the highest quality for the job.

Guys. It's a brand new, top-of-the-line MTB racing groupset. It's not even available for retail purchase yet. Get a grip. That stuff is always expensive. It's not being aimed at commuters, not yet anyway. The 1x stuff really can start pushing the front derailleur out once 1x12 or 1x13 systems become readily available, but it's going to be a long time before these systems can be had at prices most bike commuters are willing to pay.

So many fallacies in your post.

1X systems are also being pushed on gravel, cyclocross and crit bikes, not just mtb's.

I'm actually looking forward to 1X systems with 13 speed cassettes. Something like 42x11-40 13 speed as I've alluded to before.

I'm only responding because you quoted me, but I assure you, I'm not dogging this thing as much as you think. LOL!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. 1X makes a hell of a lot of sense for cross, in fact. Dealing with two chainrings is a PITA when you're trying to focus on driving your bike with your heart rate over 180 for an hour. I'm still racing a double, but they're disappearing from cyclocross extremely rapidly.

13 speed really will be an inflection point, in my opinion - probably not to the point that all doubles are killed forever, but at that point 1X becomes truly feasible for road riding. For racers and fit club riders, anyway. A 50T chainring with a 13-speed 11-36 cassette gets you all the range of a 53-39 double with an 12-28 cassette, with similar spacing to what you get on an 11-speed 11-28 cassette. It's pushing things a bit, yes - the last four shifts on that cassette are 12-14%. But that's just acceptable, I think. And 14-speed would be the nail in the coffin. I guess it's possible climate change causes the collapse of global civilization and manufacturing technology before we get there, but otherwise it's basically a matter of time. You can do a crummy 1X road bike now. 12-speed will make it marginal-to-okay. Meaning a 1x12 can get the range of a 12-25 with a standard double, and still have acceptable spacing. And 12-speed is almost here. Which means 13 speed in, what? A decade, maybe?

Fully agreed with everything you posted. I hadn't even thought of a 14 speed as a near future solution. I considered it to be more of a 10 years down the road sort of a thing. I think a 13 speed could be engineered and introduced within 5 years.

Back in the day they used to call triples 15-speeds because bikes had 3 rings and 5 cogs (with the largest at 28t). By that logic a modern compact crankset and 11-speed freewheel is a 22-speed.

In the real world, with a single double shift --e.g., from 34-16 to 50-22 -- a 50/34T compact combined with a 11x32, 11-speed freewheel provides 15 fairly evenly spaced gears (beginning with nearly a 1-to-1 which is about all that most road bikers will ever need).

That compares to ~11 gears on the traditional "15-speed;" and, then... not without a whole lot of double shifting to achieve an evenly spaced sequence of gears.

There's certainly nothing wrong with triples. But, anyone who has had as many as I have knows that they had a lot more going for them in the past than they do now. This was my first triple:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519982

That's about as oxymoronic as it gets.

Also, that's more like four shifts rather than two.

... a 'double-shift' is a rapid shifting of both the front and rear derailleurs.

Are there any possible negative effects from using this technique on a modern double crankset?

Serious question - just started cycling last year (on an IGH bike) and am still quite new to derailleurs.

Not at all... although in practice when shifting to the next 'higher' gear, for example, you generally shift to the 'highest' gear by ringing up (34t to 50t) before backing down by shifting to a bigger cog (e.g., 16t to 22t). But, it's done in a continuous manner. Modern electronic shifting systems like Di2 and EPS make the technique even easier. The only real 'trick' involved is just to know what gear you are in.

Who knows, [MENTION=111144]Andy_K[/MENTION], perhaps these miserable 50/34 cranks that force us to cross-chain all the time and shift the front when we have no other choice are just a sinister plot to whet our appetites for 1x systems that will make everything better? ;)