Good thread. Lots of interesting mechanical pluses and minuses.

I still can't justify the cost of switching from my 53-39 12-25 to a compact for such a slight difference of mechanical change. But I do have moments of gear lust that say otherwise.

But don't forget, we aren't as "cool" then

THe best is when I see people with a compact with thats like a 50/30...Same size as my small ring, and I have way more gears to choose from..

you don't need a website, just divide. 50*11=4.54:1, 53*12=4.41:1, 53*11=4.8:1, 54*11=4.9:1

The other problem with switching to compact is that you need a new front deraileur, and some bikes, like mine, used a welded boss that doesn't reach that low. ...then there' s the complaints all over about after the change, they have shifting problems, a lot more hassle than just choosing my 11-23, 12-25, or 13 -29 cassette.

Well no only about 4 more.

Instead of going compact on one of my bikes I bought a cross crankset, main reason it was a great deal.. 70.00 for New FSA Gossamer.. It uses a 48/38 and I use a 12x23 and it works fine for most of my riding.. Since it was Octalink, it took about 30 minutes to install.. Had to adjust the front der. just a little bit and I was good to go.. They also use 130bcd chainrings which is also nice..

I didn't need a new FD when I went to a compact, most people I know haven't. It is just a matter of lowering the FD, unless you have a braze-on. I haven't had any shifting problems either, not that some don't...

If you mean 50-30 chainrings, no can do with compact cranks. The smallest chainring on a compact is a 34.

Actually I'm not feeling silly at all. A 50/36 w/23/11 gives me more options on the top and the bottom than a 53/39 w/25/12. For someone like me who really needs to keep his rpm up this has been a good set up. I've timed myself on two climbs and I'm slightly faster this way but more importantly I'm able to take advantage of my sweet spot better. I'm saying this perfect I'm just saying that it works well for me.

The OP stated that everyone who had switched to a cp were lemmings and that he was happy that he had kept his 53/12. All many of us have stated was that in acuality the 50/11 is a bigger gear. Which is in fact a true statement.

While you're swapping out your cassette, I'll put my FSA 53 tooth 110 BDC (compact) chainring on... How's that for hype?

Just put a 25 in back. You can tackle basically any hill/climb in a 39/25. And if you can't, ride more and lift more weights

Wowzers, a lot of hot air being blown around about doubles and compacts. A double with a low enough cassette may give you more high end options but most of us aren't into spinning 53-11 at 110rpm but we do have to face the 3.5 mile climb at 6% grade. 39-23 ain't gonna get us to the top.

So, if you're 40 yrs. old and have never ridden a road bike before, a 50-34 crankset with 12-25 looks pretty darn good.

On my best days I've gotten the 50-12 up to 90 rpm while flying down the mountain but so what? Once on the flat I'm downshifting to around 50-15,16 to keep the cadence up. Maybe this year I'll be staying in the 50-12 longer but when it comes time to climb Keel mt. at 10.8%avg. for 1.4 miles I'll be glad I have at least the 34-25 and thinking that 12-27 cassette isn't a bad idea when it comes time to replace the cassette.

Is this the road cycling forum or the Cat 1 wanna be forum? For people like Patentcad and terry morse and Machka, my hat is off to you(and others that I'm sure I missed). But for you other dufuses like Cypress and Sincity, just who the heck do you think you are? Go hang out in a racing forum(or a steroids forum) or try to have a sense of decency and decorum. I know this is the internet and for some people that means it's okay to be an @ss and to act as assinine as possible(does that really get you off or what?) but for the rest of us, we like to learn from other peoples' experiences.

Sounds like someone is blowing smoke up your...

The only complaint I've ever heard from someone with a compact is that they regret waiting so long to try one. Oh, that's from people who I talk to in person. Y'know, real people. Not ones that say they push 55-11 up 10% grades on their magical carbon fiber uber machines built by elves in Switzerland. I love my compact. Keep loving what you ride. But don't try to justify why your set up is soooo much better with made up reasons and questionable logic.

Speaking of questionable logic, I read a bit further down the page here to find this 'amazing' conclusion:

So much for my childish 'reducing wear' theory...

The lube keeps the parts from rusting too.

4more > 4less

Yeah, kind of like "I didn't punch you, my electrons just repelled yours..."

All can still be boiled down to how close the ratios are in the back if you want the diversity of a triple with a compact. For the average cyclist I believe a compact is better then a regular double...certainly my experience. But if set up properly, for me a triple is even better with 13-26 10sp in the back. Every once in a while...not often...on real steep stuff near the end of a long ride, I need 30-26 and unless you go to a 29 in the rear with a compact, you won't get that short a ratio. I also use my 51-13 fully down hill. If you want diversity and less shifting up front, a triple is the way to go. How's that?
George

Any body can be fast on a forum.

Um. Well...I think you're having fun with us.

I'd say a compact double gives you the ability to shift less up front than a triple, not the other way around. With a triple, you're limited to how much of the cassette you can use with each front ring. And since the jumps between the front rings are less on a triple, you end up with more gear overlap than with a compact double. For example:

50-34 compact with 12-23 9-speed cassette: 3 gear overlaps
53-42-30 triple with 12-23 9-speed cassette: 10 gear overlaps

And the debate will continue as at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference.
To me, more overlap is good and perhaps not so for you. With more overlap, you can stay on any given chainring longer without shifting up front as it is easier to find your sweet spot of your rear cassette with 3 rings up front instead of two on any given ring. For example...on flat land with light rollers I stay invariably on my 42t middle ring and would be between the 34 and 50 ring of a compact much more on a lot of the terrain I ride. I know you own both 2 and 3 chainring bikes and so do I. I prefer a triple and you prefer a compact. There will never be uninimity nor should there be. It is good to have options.
Cheers,
George

Any body who thinks that compact doubles don't have a place in the cycling world are not looking at this with an open mind (IMHO).

I think there's a place for both. The triple on my touring/rain beast is nice to have. I found myself using the lowest gear on that up a 15% grade the other day, and I was grateful to have it. Triples are very handy on mountain bikes, too.

But on my go-fast, weight weenie bike, I think a compact double is a simpler solution to the gear question. Small ring for the "real" climbs, big ring for everything else. What's a real climb? That's subjective, of course. My definition is about 6% or more, lasting more than a couple minutes.

+1

Of course it is but what would this forum be without stupid debates?

Doc...I have two bike both compacts. One had a reg drl calmp on and the other has a braz on with a compact fsa fd...both bikes shift fine.

with the bolt patterns a compact can be 53/39, 50/36, or 50/34 look...https://www.bikeusa.com/components/chainrings.html if this is hype...plz I want more

the other thing...the "real" stand. double was a 52/42 for years, then it went 53/39, that 53/39 is a normalized compact crank...

it may be that as the cogs in back get smaller so will our front rings and your manhood will be threatened even more...