definitely if it affecting your climbing. What you can get (and what I think would be a more reasonable choice) is a 50/36 if you want to keep the same “jump” between big and small chainrings and not have such a small small chainring while still being able to climb easier. And it also depends on the gearing for the sprint. You will definitely be able to wind it up faster so your jump will be quick but if you are using a 53×11 right now then you are going to have to be a master at positioning and if it is a downhill sprint then forget about it.

If you are going to switch then your going to have to start doing some practice with the higher gears and being comfortable spinning them without shacking. Though Jan Ullrich tried the same thing to get out of his mashing ways and try higher cadence work but it wasn’t to be.
If you are really don’t want to loose anything in the sprints and alleviate some climbing problems you could go all the way up to a 27-29 tooth gear but then the jump between gears is huge and it is a lot more difficult to find the sweet spot.

The advantage of compacts is that you can run a tighter cassette in the rear, and have fewer gaps between gears. Also, if you frequently find yourself riding like a 53×19 in the flats, a 50 tooth big ring will give you a better chainline for the same gear – you’d be riding more like a 50×15 or 16. This gives you less chain wear.

A lot depends on your style of riding, the terrain you habitually ride and the speed of the groups you are in. If you’re riding a lot of fast crits or fast flat group rides, you may need the 53. You also may need the 53 if you sprint a great deal. If you are more of a masher than a spinner – nothing wrong with that – you may not like the lighter gears on a compact set-up. The other thing worth noting is that hilly road races also typically involve descending – do you need the 53×12 or 53×11 to ride the descending finish? This is why campy invented the 11-25, btw. On the intangible side, though the gear inches may work out to be close to the same, there is a subtly different feel to riding a bigger chainring – 53×19 feels different from a 39×16, though the gear inches is very close.

Depends on your riding style and your terrain, really.

but why did you even tout the option of a triple in the poll? more fiddle for little gain in terms of spread of gear ratios – don’t bovver

Not so much on the 50/34.
It never seems to fit and I feel like I’m changing gears a lot more often.

the 52/36 seems to cover everything I need, but I’ve got huge hills and not much sprinting.

who rides a Prince and he pieced together his own parts for a campy cassette with a 13 × 29(!) – seems to work but I guess you need to know what you’re doing (and no, he doesn’t race – except for town signs)

Me? I happily use a triple (blush) – but I am old, slow, and haven’t ridden a flat ride in years

cassette would be

12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26… I guess I would like 11 speed…

You can mix and match a bit with Campy cassettes but they do use different spacers for different models so you need to get it right.

will have a double crankset. I never use my granny, and my big ring has been replaced with a rock ring. A 26t/39t would be perfect. i would have a climbing gear without the risk of chain suck that you get with a 22t. Ok, enough MTB talk before Chris has my membership revoked.

It took us several years just to get him to let us talk about ‘cross… And that’s only because you can use campy on a cross bike.

I’ve been running a 50/34 with 11-25 for a while now. I’m in NorCal so probably my riding is quite a bit hillier than what you do. As for descending, I’ve been told 50×11 is a slightly bigger gear than 53×12.

I am running 11-speed Chorus which I am really liking, I can almost always find a gear I like. I believe Campy 11 short cage derailleurs will work with anything up to a 29 tooth cog, but I don’t know if you are thinking about a new gruppo or just subbing in a compact crank to an existing set up.

and a 14 is 102.2 inches.

This is compared to a 50×11 having 122.7 inches which is quite a big gear. From an 11 to a 12 on a compact, you are losing 10 inches which is a lot but if your never going to use the gear then it might be alright then because with a 12 you can afford to get one larger gear in the back while keeping a tighter cluster.

For gear inches, the late, great Sheldon Brown has all the info you would ever want on the subject.

Just buy a ZIpp Vuma: it’s two cranks in one.

Actually, it is: Zipp made it so it would fit both compact and standards rings. (And surprisingly, the rings aren’t super-expensive . . .)

(And, yes, you will notice the stiffness . . .)

While running a 12-27 or 13-29 gives you the climbing gears you want, it also really spaces out the cassette. Going with a compact gives you the lower gearing while also allowing you to keep a pretty tight gearing so you have a smoother progression through the cassette.

As noted before, a 50-36 should shift as well as a 53-39. Granted, you’ll have to reposition the front derailleur a little lower to get the optimal placement relative to the chainrings, but that’s no biggie, especially if you have a shop do the work.

One thing people tend to assume is that, when you get a compact, you throw away a chance at sprinting. While you do lose a 53-11, I know few people who actually throw down in an 11 even in racing. An interesting fact to note here is that a 50-11 is actually a slightly harder gear than a 53-12, so you aren’t losing a whole lot of top end, especially if you’re running a 12-23 or 12-25. Of course, what cassette you run with a compact would depend on how low a gear you want for climbs and how much priority you place on a high gear. Best of luck!

And yes, STFU.

I’m in my 40’s, used to compete, been riding for about 22yrs, and made the switch to a compact (50/34) about two years ago. I live a very hilly area, and would never dream of going back to a standard double.

I also happen to be a professional bike fitter and many of the knee problems I address are the result of mashing big gears, particularly up hills. In fact, after reviewing old footage, I’m quite convinced that Bernard Hinault’s bouts of tendinitis in the early 80’s were the result of pushing large gears uphill, rather than a saddle set too high (which is usually blamed for his recurring problem).

Do your knees a favor, and give the compact a try.

does anyone know how to post an excel file on here? i put a drivetrain comparison worksheet together a while back that could be useful here. i tried to upload it to google docs, but it screwed all my formulas up and got rid of my chart.

https://rcpt.yousendit.com/790536116/0d36b49b879dcf118c2e859059ff08d0

And I’m not a professional.

My bike had a 53-39 and 12-25, and any time I went anywhere hilly, it was horrible. Anything over 10%, and you’re going to be struggling, because the 39-25 ratio means you have be going 10 mph to have a cadence that doesn’t kill your knees. And that speed is not fun on hills of that gradient.

I avoided a triple crankset for years, not because I thought I was ‘too hard’ to abandon a double, but because I thought (and still think) that a triple is ugly on a roadbike. So the compact crankset has been a godsend. A 34-25 means I can twiddle my way up hills without coughing up a lung. I cycle for pleasure – I’m not out to annihilate myself.

(And as others have pointed out, a 50-11 is a longer ratio than a 53-12).

with a 46/36 compact and road tires. I’m sold. Even with the 36 it was so much more forgiving than the 39. I’m going to try it with the 34t next.