rtruectoc

i was wondering if this would alleviate the double shifting involved in a 50/34. i crunched the numbers and in my case with the sram 12-26 it seems so. i currently run a 26/39/50. i never use the easiest gear or the hardest. if i loose my 14 and add a 29, i will have similar ratios as my triple without those two gears. all i need is a48 tooth chainring, so the cost will be minimal. i figure it will save me about 200 grams as well

CliftonGK1

I've been running a 36/48 with a 12-25 cassette, but I'm switching to the exact combo you mentioned: 34/48. I'm also replacing the cassette with an 11-32. That still gives me 7 cogs at nearly the same range I have now, plus the 28 and 32.

bmike

Running a TA with 94 BCD and using everything from a 30/42, 32/46, 32/48 to a 34/50 combo up front (and quite a bit in between) and a 13-26 or 13-29 Campy on the rear.

Love it, and I have a set of chainrings that I can switch should I want to tune the gearing for a particular event.

SharpT

I prefer to be forced to double shift from time to time, and I also use down tube shifters. Forces me to move my hands around during those long distance rides. I'm running 42-52 chainrings, and a 13-34 7 speed (13,15,17,20,24,29,34). I'd like to go compact just to shift things down a bit and get a lower gear, but requires too many part changes.

--
SharpT

bmike

Wouldn't you just need the crankset? The BB should still work, being a double.

papawizo

I have a 1978 bike which initially was built with a 52/34 and a 5 speed freewheel with 14-32 spacing.
I dropped the big gear to a 48/34 and ride with that arrangement. I'm no mountain goat and still really work hard with this arrangement. I used to ride with a 46/36/26 crank set up and found the tiny gears helpful. My thought is that I can get a bit stronger with my current arrangement. Some would find my gearing more than adequate. The 10 gears I run are all I really need except for those really tired moments when I do wish for something lower on a really steep climb.
JV

banerjek

I tried a 48/34, but eventually returned to 50/34.

I'm a huge fan of compacts, but I think that unless you intend to change cassettes for different types of rides, a triple is better. The issue is that you want tight gear selection in the ranges you actually ride. If you have only one cassette, you may find yourself too close to one end of the cassette or the other.

Six jours

I ran a 50/34 with a 12-25 for a while and it was okay. It was a pretty big gap up front though, and right in the middle of my range, which could be a bit annoying. The close spacing at the back was nice, though. Eventually I realized that the 50x12 was useless to me, so I switched to a 46/30. I am still using that set-up and can pretty much use it like a single ring set-up: the 46 is good for nearly everything, and the 30 only comes into play in the mountains.

dwainedibbly

Back in the 80s I set my wife's bike up with a 46/34, 13x24 6-speed. That bike is still set up that way. Hills here aren't much of an issue and she doesn't do group rides, so she doesn't need either end of the usual range.

Sometimes I think that 9- and 10-speed clusters have spoiled us.

JackJ

I'm running a 48-34 compact with a 12-27 9sp cassette, and it's perfect for my needs. I cruise in the big ring and near the middle of the cassette most of the time; the 34 ring is reserved for climbing, or times when I'm taking it easy. I use downtube shifters on this bike, and certainly don't feel a need for closer spacing.

Jack

Moto-Velo

I also run a 48/34 with a 12-27 and find that it's perfect. I ride fixed a lot and my ideal ratio for that is about equivalent to 48x17, which has me running in the middle of the cassette on the geared bike. Like JackJ, the 34 is only used for climbing and 34x27 has gotten me up any hills I've come across (including the infamous 33% grade of Fargo Street hill in Los Angeles). And since I'm used to riding fixed, I don't worry too much about having a tight cassette as I'd rather adjust my cadence than move up or down a tooth.