The bike is built up with the parts the component supplier ships to the assembly line .. once you own the bike ,

Then it is perhaps time to substitute the typical triple 30t for something smaller.. I have a 50-40-24t on my road & non IGH touring Bike..

High gear cog is 13t..

11 t a smaller big ring should do.. those VO cranks with a 30-46, perhaps ?

I went with 6800 Ultegra on the latest frame I built up. On the front is the 50-34 with the 11-32 on the rear. With eleven sprockets, it has:

11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32

I'm fairly satisfied. The 34-32 can handle most hills in the Southern Californian mountains. I won't get up very fast, but I'll make it eventually. The lowest my 6700 triple goes is 30-30, which isn't much lower than the 34-32, (1.6 gear inches difference).

You can't really go wrong with a triple. You get 2 chainrings that will be good for spinning and a bail out granny gear.

Even if you don't need a triple where you live (as per your post no. 26) you may still want one. There probably are some great hills near where you live and you may take the bike for a ride in the western part of your state.

Road
50/34 crankset with 11-32 cassette (SRAM Force & Rival, 11s)

Commute
48/34 crankset with 11-36 cassette (SRAM Apex, 10s)

MTB
36/24 crankset with 11-36 cassette (SRAM X9, 10s)

I concur. Since I have so little use for more than 100 gear-inches, and since I can always coast, I do not carry anything above 94 to 98 on the road bikes, or 104 on the mountain bike. Likewise, I don't go below the low 40s on the road bikes or the mid 20s on the mountain bike (which does have a triple). Instead, as a couple of others have noted, I like a tight -- 6 or 7 percent -- gear progression across most of the range, possibly with larger gaps at the top and bottom. This is my frustration with even the best internally geared hubs -- the gear ratio steps are too far apart for my tastes.

If I wanted a wider range (top and/or bottom) I would do follow chasm's triple chainring advice to avoid big ratio steps.

I did like the close-ratio half-step-plus-granny 3x6 triple I tried on the Peugeot, before I gave it to my son: 48-45-34 / 13-15-17-19-21-24. I was able to use a short cage SunTour Cyclone rear and the Peugeot's stock Simplex front changer and still get a 40 to 100 inch range, with an orderly and dense progression of ratios all the way up.

My road bike has a 53/42 on the front and my lowest on the rear is 24. Let me tell you that at 60+ years I need a couple of lower gears even here in the flat midwest. I'll soon be looking at a different crank set.

When you're in your forties, your arms get shorter and you need reading glasses. When you're in your fifties, hills get bigger and longer and you need a triple.

Actually, I have bikes with both since I buy used bikes I like that fit me and my purchases are guided more by price, condition, and beauty than number of gears. Still, if I were to start with a frame and do a custom build I'd go with a triple.

Yeah tsl mentioned the crosschaining issue with the stock 50 / 34 rings and I certainly would have had that if I hadn't gone with 46 /36 rings.

Luckily I found a 46 NOS Campy MTB ring that looks great with the VO compact on one bike. Most Campy 110 BC rings have one of the bolt holes offset from that pattern but this one is a uniform 110. So 40 to 94 gear inches on that one.

Sugino rings will suffice for the other bike with the Sugino compact and that bike has 34 gear inch bailout.......enough for whatever baby hills I take on.

Utter nonsense! With a 34 small ring and an 11-what ever cassette you are good to speeds below 22 mph if you have the ability to spin and if you don't, learn. At the same time if you go to a 30 cog climbing the steep stuff for miles on end is possible. Moderate speeds having a tight cluster and triple gives close ratios in the middle to slower half of the cassette. You might get a 16 cog. The fast half all the jumps are a bit farther apart. Now that you can get road derailleurs that will accomodate 32 cogs triples have lost more of their appeal.

I'm not saying they do not have a place and as long as there is a market why not. To argue which is better is pointless. I prefer a double it gives me everything I need. I'll speculate that there are real differences in the abilities between those who buy their bikes online and those who patronize a LBS. FWIW I've been told that fitness/comfort bikes is the fastest growing market segment for LBS anyway. Also I am seeing triples on mtn bikes. I think they will be here for a long time.

OP question was if I were in the market for a nice road bike what would it be: Mid compact x 11sp.

Curiosity question about crank sets, for everyone over 50
 

With a triple and 10 speed cassette you have the most incredible wide range of gears you will ever need. Yet the debate over gearing still goes on.
I use a 2 x 5 classic ten speed setup. It still works very well. I tried a new bike with compact double and 10 speed rear. All I did was shift, shift, shift. Too many to choose from. I like the feel of 10 gear inch increments with my classic ten speed.

The proper answer would depend on a number of variables: all based on the Low & High ranges required and a rider's tolerance for steps between cogs, budget and aesthetics.

Select the lowest gear that will get you up the stiffest local climb w/o undue stress & the highest gear that you are willing to spin-out on the other side.
Now you have your Low & High range defined. Cram as many cogs in the back & chain rings up front to suit your self and have at it.

It's a personal thing, but getting the Range dialed in is critical.
With modern cassettes having a Flat, Rolling & Mountain cassette to switch out as required is a 10 minute job, considering the expense of current machines a good investment in performance for few $.

-Bandera

Yep. That's the nice thing about cassettes that can change the range alright.

I am 70 and like a compact double for most riding situations, however when planning a hilly trip I take a bike with triples. I just regeared one to 50/39/30 with 11/30 cassette.
I spend winters in Austin TX, where not uncommon to see compact doubles with 11/34 cassettes. Lots of hills, I have a bike there with 46/36/26 and 12/28 cassette, 7 speed.

The decision between a double and a triple is driven as much by marketing/engineering decisions by Shimano/SRAM/Campy as it is by what riders actually need. Compacts are easy to find and work well with brifters. Shimano's triple, IMHO, is a poor design that doesn't offer much of an advantage over a compact. SRAM went over to compacts a long time ago and Campy is expensive.

A triple with a 110/74 bcd (and those are getting harder to find) gives you the best of both worlds as you basically get a compact with a bailout gear. Plus typically the big 2 rings mimic what you see on a modern cross bike (48-36 or 46-36) and that works better, I think, than the 50-34 you find on a compact.

+1 a 48-36 chainring set with a 12-30 cassette is ideal for hilly rides and a 46-36 with an 11-28 cassette also has merit for the recreational 50+ cyclist who is seeking a wide range and user friendly cog spacing in the important 15 to 30 mph range.

Baloney. A 39 chainring with an 12-27 cassette has a faster speed range than a 34 chainring with an 11-2X cassette. The 34 chainring 11 cog combination provides 23.2 mph while the 39 chainring 12 cog provides 24.4 mph at the same cadence and tire diameter. Also, a triple with a 12-27 provides both a wider range and tighter cog spacing than a Compact with any available 10 speed road cassette if a 26t small chainring is installed.

How do I know? I installed an Ultegra 50 -34 compact with an 11-32 (11,12,13,15,17,19,21,24,28,32) Sram road cassette with an Ultegra long arm rear derailleur more than 4 years ago, it was only useful on very hilly routes and a total pain on faster rides on flat roads.

See: http://www.bikeforums.net/long-dista...r-no-hill.html

The 11 to 30 cassette you use to justify your opinion doesn't exist and wouldn't be an improvement over a road triple and a 12-27 cassette. You would likely end up with a 15.4% change in cadence between the 13 and 15 cogs right at the 20 to 23 mph cruising speed while on the big ring. A 11,12,13,15,17,19,21,24, 28,30 would not result in a better hill climbing range than most road triples.

Returning to reality, we see that the popular Compact and 11-28 cassette combination is inferior to the 52, 39 & 30 triple with a 12-27 cassette. The triple provides both tighter cog spacing with a very usefull 12,13,14,15,16,17,19 block that can be used from 15 to 33 mph. Please click on the image below.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=408982

I'm not using an 11-30 cassette to justify my opinion. I am using 5k miles this year with an 11-28 and a few hundred with a 12-30. I don't own an 11-30 10 sp, had a 9sp with that but whatever. One the one hand you seem to agree with me with your paragraph above the quote. Speeds below 22 miles an hour for me I do not need a big ring, your chart shows that nicely. Around 17 miles an hour I can move to the big ring. I've not found holes in what I have and can always seem to find the gear and cadence that fits how I feel and how fast I want to go.

Well, your revised opinion is correct, anyway. We both agree that a 50 & 34 compact requires changing the front chainrings in the common cruising speed range of 15 to 20 mph. A 39 chaining easily allows the cyclist to stay on one chainring and to just use the faster changes across the cassette until 24 mph or faster speeds are reached. Most 50+ recreational cyclist are infrequently reaching cruising speeds above 24 mph, where exceeded 20 mph happens with greater frequency.

Chances are that gravity is aiding your gearing. A 50 chainring works well if traveling downhill and even a 1% slope can make a difference for a heavier rider. A 34 chainring works well while climbing a moderate grade, although a 30 or 26 is clearly better up a truly steep grade. However, roads that stay in the plus or minus 2% range are much better on a 39 or 42 chainring if the cyclist likes to maintain a 15 to 24 mph speed range. One of my vintage bikes uses a 52, 42 and 30 chainset with a 12-21 cassette and the middle chainring is good up to 26 mph. That's a sweet ride;
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...psab71db9e.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps012b14aa.jpg

To muddy the waters further, there's this sub-compact crankset from Sugino:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=409000

It has 74mm and 110mm BCDs, and is compatible with Shimano external (road) BBs.

I have an older triple with 50/45/28. I find the 50/45 gives plenty of options while cruising and the 28 is there when I need it (using 14-28 out back).

scott s.
.

Love the design, hate the price.

Interesting.

Is there some fundamental reason for not having the gap on the cassette.

It looks like a 34-48 coupled with a 12,13,14,15,16,17, 22, 25 28,32 would give you a one tooth increment all the way from about 13-28 mph, one shift on the front, with a very narrow cadence band from 80-85 rpm, and Skip the small ring with the small cog.

Would the 17-22 jump in the middle play havoc with the rear shifter?

.
Other than your reading comprehension and your mistaking my words we do somewhat agree. Can does not equal require and my opinion has not been revised. I think I confused you by talking about two different bikes both with double cranks, my road bike and my cx bike.

As with most folks gravity works both ways. I do my share of inclines and declines and even more of into the wind. I climb mountains with my lowest gear of 34-28 and 36-30 on two differing bikes. Grades measured in miles rather than feet long and at 6%+, some as steep as 13% sustained. If gravity did not work against me so much I would be rocking a mid compact plus my 11-28 but sometimes I like the lower gears and am unable to out spin 50-11.

I'm 63 and here in Texas you don't have any hills per say, however where I live we have what I call rolling hills, landscape.

Both my bikes have a double

a. Ridley has sram 53/39 with a 11-25 cassette.
b. Tiemeyer has shimano 50/36, the smaller 36 ring is sram and shifts great with an 11-23 cassette.
I can ride and push all the gears with really no issue. However with the arthritis I have my preference has been leaning towards the 50/36 for more spinning and just seems to be more joint friendly.

My road bike is a 92 Paramount (7 speed downtube originally) which I refitted with a 50/34 compact and a 12-32 rear with an XT rear D/R. With 9 speed Ultegra it shifts flawlessly.

That's my solution to old knee, one of which is metal, and Texas hill country.

It's a simple thing to change rear cassette and rear D/r, and probably cheaper than a new crank.

Just sayin'......

Boys I think you're differences depend on riding style and what gears you like. As a non masher type I'm personally all over the gears front and back just to keep up with the Joneses. I can go back and forth on the chainrings and RD several times in a few rolling hill miles and will trouble to do so. Some people like to pick a ring and stick with it.