Andy_K 

I've got a 46-34 on my gravel bike with a 12-32 cassette, and I like it a lot (though sometimes I could use a lower gear), but putting a 46T big ring on a road bike would feel too much like giving up.

rm -rf

Well, I have both 50-34 and 52-39-30 bikes.

50-34 is where the Di2 electronic shifters really are nice. Rear shifts are instant, and the fronts are fast and easy, so I'll shift the front even on very small roller hills. I have it set to "shift 3 cogs" on a half second (or longer) "long press". So at the base of a hill, press both bottom paddles with a long press to go to the 34 and to three smaller cogs. Slick. A long press on both top paddles does the opposite at the top of a hill.

This Di2 bike is great on fast-for-me group rides, where I'm often shifting, trying to get a cadence where I can hang on the group. And I'll ride it on a century ride in May that has never ending rollers for most of the ride--I'll be shifting the front all the time there.

I was missing having the 16 cog on the original Ultegra 11-28 cassette. I would often shift back and forth between the 15 and 17, trying to find a good cadence. I'd rather have a 16 and drop the 11.

~~~

My other touring style bike is 11 speed 52-39-30 and either 12-29 or 12-25. I've never had a bike with a 39 chainring before, it's pretty nice. And for reasonably flat rides, the 12-25 is a straight block from 12 to 19, and then 21, 23, 25. I can always find the exact cadence I want with this. (The low 30-25 is about the same as a 34-28.)

The front triple shifter needs to be carefully shifted, slowing my cadence while easing up on the pedals. So I'm more likely to keep it in the "wrong" chainring for a while. But the 39 chainring has a decent range, from about 10 mph up to 22 or so.

This triple setup is great on all-day endurance type rides. My pace is slower and easier, and I can take my time shifting as needed.

badger1

Meh. I've been using a *48/34 x 12-32 for six+ years now; three-season inner-city commuting and long/road rides (only have one bike). No problem at all.

Drivetrain replaced a stock 50/39/30 that I absolutely loathed; much prefer the compact double, and am seriously considering 1x11. And yes, I ride reasonably quickly, at a reasonably high cadence, with lots of stop/starts when riding to/from work.

*Ditched the 50 tooth when it wore and replaced with a 48. I have no use for a 50x12 gear.

McBTC

It's pretty much what all of us did back in the day (of 5 speed cogs -- even with triples -- to get the most evenly spaced gears). The usual technique is to briefly shift into your higher (harder) gear first... so, you'd ring up from 34 to 50 and quickly drop two cogs (and vice versa going uphill: shift to the higher gears on the freewheel before dropping to the 34-ring).

Andy_K 

Sure, dropping two cogs is OK. Dropping four cogs is what I'm against.

McBTC

True... the magnitude of the gap between a compact's rings leads to a major shift ~13-14mph.

no motor?

My commute is mostly flat and I shift gears like a truck driver some days. But I love the triple up front and the 8 speed cassette that usually have the gears I want in a place I can get to them without too much trouble.

NormanF

For crying out loud, install a 36 T or 42 T cog in the rear and you'll have as much of a granny gear on a compact double as you would on a triple.

grolby

In theory I agree you get more logical spacing with a triple than a compact double. But when I think about it, I haven't had a bike with a triple, barring passing encounters, in at least five years. And I don't find I miss them. Plus, what @NormanF said. In these days of 10 and 11-speed drivetrains that can handle cassette cogs in excess of 34 teeth, there's much less need for triples.

That said, I don't have a 50-34 compact on any bike. My primary commuter has a 46-36 cross double, my cross racer has a 46-38 double (smallest ring I could get on a 130 BCD crank), and my road bike has a 53-39 standard double. With a 28T cog on the road bike and a 30T on the cross racer, they're as low as I ever need on my commute for sure, and in most other situations as well. The commuter is still quite new to me and I haven't changed out the cassette from the stock 12-25. That's adequate for me, albeit a bit stiff when I want to take it easy on the steepest slopes on my commute, but I wouldn't blame most people for wanting something a little lower.

Darth Lefty 

I like to remember in these threads that a classic 10-speed Schwinn would have had a 40-34 low gear and a 52-14 high, about 32* to 100 gear inches with (sorta) six ratios. You can now get about the same range and up to 11 ratios with a single ring and an 11-34 cassette. The situation is even better for you if you were going to match a Campy setup which had both narrower rings and smaller freewheel.

* Edit- at first I misremembered and miswrote 40-100

Andy_K 

I recently built up an '82 Trek with a 6-speed freewheel and a 53-42 double, and I have to say it was a revelation regarding the history of gearing. For instance, I used to think it was ridiculous that any non-racer would have a chainring bigger than 50 teeth. Now, I've shifted into my smallest cog while using a 53 tooth chainring. That still doesn't explain why anyone with an 11-25 10-speed cassette would want a ring that big, but it at least explains why it happened.

Similarly, I really believe compact doubles represent a wrong turn in the history of bike gear evolution and 1x11 setups are a desperate attempt to fix it. The fact that people think installing a cassette with a 42 tooth cog is a good solution to the problem kind of proves my point.

gregf83 

I use a 50-34 when it's dry and a 42 1x10 in the winter. The 50 works well for me as I use it for most of the commute except a 5% bridge and another hill coming home. I would never start out from a stop in the 34, better to just stand up on the 50. The 42 works OK in the winter but I do spin out a little sometimes going down the bridge and in a decent tailwind.

KonaRider125

I too hated the 50/34 gearing on my road bike and recently swapped to Wickwerks 41/33 chainrings. Love the setup. I can essentially stay in the 41 big ring for 90 percent of my riding. Haven't had any issue with being spun out yet.

deapee

I don't know -- I went from a 50/39/30 -- which I absolutely hated.

As you can see from the photo, The range is 2.1-9 (50/34) compared to 2.2-9.2 (50/39/30).

I pretty much live on the 50 now...maybe toward the end of a ride and on a hill, I'll hit the 34, or if doing a serious climb, but I've never had a bike that shifts as buttery smooth as my compact 50/34. Maybe it's because of 105 components vs the lower end Claris I had...not sure, but either way, as long as I had the choice, I would not buy a bike that wasn't a double ever again.

hyhuu

I like my 50/34 and 12-28 combo. They get me up and down every roads around here.

Leebo

I run a mountain triple on 2 bikes. Front is 22-36-46/48. 9 speed. 22 is for bailout or touring. Just get gears better suited for you? Run a 36-46/48 and be done with it.

Phil_gretz

...after I swapped out the 50 for the 46. Works way better for me, as that ~8% reduction made the large chainring more useful. I'm not racing, afterall.

bmthom.gis

I'm pretty sure I am running a 50-34 with a 12-32 9 speed on the back and it works quite well for me.I probably would have used a triple if I had one and corresponding shifter in the parts bin, but I didn't, and I have no problem with my current gearing. I could have used a 53 big ring, but I can't imagine wanting/needing that for my commuter. I spend 90% of my time in the big ring, and only drop to the small for steep hills. I'd rather start from a stop in the big ring and somewhere in the back-middle of my cassette - somewhere around 20 for startign on flats, or 22/24 for starting back on a bit of an uphill. Also, I'm fairly certain shifting the rear all the way does give me a 3 cog shift, so even starting in the 34, shifting down 3 cogs and going into the 50 to get a similar gear isn't any kind of a big deal. But really, my small ring is just for getting up hills and I like those smaller increments for variations in hill grade

bigbenaugust 

My Fantom Cross CX is running 48/34 up front now. I live in a hilly town, so there is some rowing through the gears, but it isn't the end of the world.

I realized I hate triples for all of the maintenance headaches of indexed shifting. But I can understand the necessity under certain circumstances.

Velocivixen

My bike came with a 36/48 and for my riding, mostly urban, seems alright. Triples are nice though.

AlmostTrick

This is why I went to a single ring. Spent years on a triple almost entirely in the center ring.

My present bike is 42 x 12-26 nine speed. (I like close ratio's) I do 100% of my riding in the 42 ring.

I reach 30 mph everyday without even clicking top gear. I've pedaled 37 in ninth. There is no reason I'd ever need to pedal above those speeds. Climbing means I stand up and get it done. If I tire standing in third or forth gear, the 42x26 first is tolerable enough to spin the rest of the way.

Andy_K 

What did you hate about the 50/39/30?

cyccommute 

Personally, the only gearing system that I find goofier than compact doubles are 1x systems. You really coast above 24mph? I can hit 25mph without even trying within half mile of my office. If I put any effort into it, I can go over the point where the speed sign at my work no longer gives a number (35mph). On a day with wind, I've been known to hit 45 by the time I reach the speed sign. Coasting at 25mph drives me batty!

I agree with you completely. I would like to point out, however, that while the gear calculator on Sheldon Brown's site is good, I find this one to be better. It's more visual and it allows for simple comparisons between different drivetrains. The example I've linked to is your gearing and a "cross over" gearing pattern with the same range but better shift pattern. "Cross over" gearing should not to be confused with "cross chaining". A "cross over" gearing pattern is one where you pedal and change gears as needed until you need (or want) to go to a lower range. Then you "cross over" to the next higher range. For example: Looking at the example in the link above, if you were pedaling in the 48/19 combination and needed to downshift, "crossing over" to the inner ring would give you the same gear as downshifting on the back. It's an easy system to learn and comes in very handy. Sure there are lots of duplicate gears but you really can use the unique gears on the compact double all that well without a lot of double and triple shifts at a time when you don't want to be double and triple shifting.

I chose the 11-36, by the way, to give you the same range as the compact double has. That might be a stretch for a road rear to handle but you could use a Wolf Tooth Road Link to extend the range of the derailer. Alternatively, you might be able to use a mountain 9 speed rear derailer and/or the Wolf Tooth Road Link to accomplish the same thing. Alternatively, you might be able to use Wolf Tooth's new cable adapter to use a Dynasys derailer with STI. Or you could use the 11-29 system you have and live with the smaller range. You can easily play with all of these on the calculator I've linked to.

alan s 

Riding on a MUP with a speed limit of 15 mph at 45 mph, even if you could do it, could get someone killed. There are areas with small downhiills that I'll get up to about 23-25 mph if no one is around. I hope you don't try that stunt around here, fella.

cyccommute 

Do you only ever ride on bike paths? I certainly don't. I have nothing against it and I ride them frequently but I also spend a lot of time on roads getting to and from the bike paths as well as other places and when Gravity wants to have her way with me, who am I to deny her?