Cranksets and gearing.
#1
vespertine member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Land of Angora, Turkey
Posts: 2,476
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 220 Times
in
163 Posts
Cranksets and gearing.
Let's discuss cranksets and gearing - specifically, the pros and cons of compact (50-34), mid-compact (52-36), and what I call oldschool (53-39).
I'm considering going mid-compact or oldschool. It turns out that 34x28 is more than enough for the climbing I do; I pretty much only use that for grades over 12%, and even then, they're short enough that I can grind them out in 34x25 (though it's not much fun). There are also times when I'd like a bit of a higher gear for descents.
So my concern is that with mid-compact or oldschool, I'd want an 11-32 cassette, and might dislike the tighter cluster of 11-28. Those of you who have experience with different configurations: what did you like or dislike about different configurations, and why?
I'm considering going mid-compact or oldschool. It turns out that 34x28 is more than enough for the climbing I do; I pretty much only use that for grades over 12%, and even then, they're short enough that I can grind them out in 34x25 (though it's not much fun). There are also times when I'd like a bit of a higher gear for descents.
So my concern is that with mid-compact or oldschool, I'd want an 11-32 cassette, and might dislike the tighter cluster of 11-28. Those of you who have experience with different configurations: what did you like or dislike about different configurations, and why?
#2
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
IME a combo which gives you enough top end speed and the closest ratio climbing gearing would be the ideal. That usually means the crankset with the smallest inner ring, resulting in a cassette with a smaller big cog. But that may depend on the gradients on which one rides, i.e. if you'd spin out a 50 X 11 all the time and hate that worse than not having the perfect climbing cog.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#3
Junior Member
I use a compact 50-34 chainring set and an 11-32 cassette on my road bike. I only spin out in high gear going down a fairly steep grade. When everything is working for me a can get a max top speed of about 43mph. Every time I get the feeling that it might be nice to have a higher top end gear for those thrilling descents, I am usually humbled by a tough hill to climb. That always reminds me how nice it is to have that compact setup. I seldom use that 34-32 combination, but it’s there when I need it on long, steep climbs, long days in the saddle, or when I am just having an off day. I wouldn’t want to be without it.
#4
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4560 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
My road bikes are both older, 7-speeds. The steel Ironman (172.5 crank arms) now wears 50/39 chainrings and 13-25 freewheel. The early '90s Trek 5900 (170 cranks) is 52/42 (Biopace -- hey, they're okay with me) and 14-28. On fast downhills I'm often spun out at 130 rpm, where I get a bit wobbly and can hold that cadence for only 15-30 seconds. And on bad days neither has a comfortable granny gear when my legs are dead.
My favorite gearing? My old 8-speed Univega hybrid (175 crank arms) with 50/40/30 triple and 11-32 cassette. I've never spun out on fast downhills (partly because of wind resistance approaching 30 mph with the more upright bike) and always have enough gear for climbs even when my legs are dead. The bike never really feels like its 30 lb weight. In contrast, some days the 20 lb Trek feels like a lead sled, usually the final climbs after a hard (for me) 30 mile workout ride.
Eventually I'll convert the Trek 5900 back to 8-speed, 11-32, and might consider a 52/38 double in 130 BCD, unless I switch to 110. We don't have any long steep climbs so that would be adequate.
Yeah, the crank arm lengths might make some difference. Honestly, I'd need better data over time to be sure it's not just subjective.
My favorite gearing? My old 8-speed Univega hybrid (175 crank arms) with 50/40/30 triple and 11-32 cassette. I've never spun out on fast downhills (partly because of wind resistance approaching 30 mph with the more upright bike) and always have enough gear for climbs even when my legs are dead. The bike never really feels like its 30 lb weight. In contrast, some days the 20 lb Trek feels like a lead sled, usually the final climbs after a hard (for me) 30 mile workout ride.
Eventually I'll convert the Trek 5900 back to 8-speed, 11-32, and might consider a 52/38 double in 130 BCD, unless I switch to 110. We don't have any long steep climbs so that would be adequate.
Yeah, the crank arm lengths might make some difference. Honestly, I'd need better data over time to be sure it's not just subjective.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,931 Times
in
2,556 Posts
I look at the smallest gear I need and the largest. Say 42-32 and 53-12. Convert those to gear inches. (42/32 X 27 =) 35.4 GI and 119 GI. Now you can look at the chainrings you want to use and see what cassette results or vice versa. Say you really like the spacing on a 11-28 cassette. 119/27 X 11 = 48.5. 35.4/27 X 28 = 36.7 So a 48-36 by 11-28 will be near identical to a 53-42 X 12-32.
Or say you really want a 50-34. So 50 X 27/119 = 11.3 and 34 X 27/35.4 = 25.9 A 50-34 by 11-26 will also get you the same gearing.
Actually, after I decided to go 9-speed years ago, I purchased several different cassettes and a couple of outside cogs so I can have two wheels built up in nearly any combo from 12, 13 or 14 to 23, 25 or 28. (I've used 53-42-28 chainrings for decades.)
Ben
Or say you really want a 50-34. So 50 X 27/119 = 11.3 and 34 X 27/35.4 = 25.9 A 50-34 by 11-26 will also get you the same gearing.
Actually, after I decided to go 9-speed years ago, I purchased several different cassettes and a couple of outside cogs so I can have two wheels built up in nearly any combo from 12, 13 or 14 to 23, 25 or 28. (I've used 53-42-28 chainrings for decades.)
Ben
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
What benefit are you expecting from the mid or standard?
I prefer tight spacing and, like you, I don't have many hills that are both long and steep, so I'm running a compact with a 12-25t. Spinning out on the 50/12 hasn't been a problem for where and how I ride.
I prefer tight spacing and, like you, I don't have many hills that are both long and steep, so I'm running a compact with a 12-25t. Spinning out on the 50/12 hasn't been a problem for where and how I ride.
#8
vespertine member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Land of Angora, Turkey
Posts: 2,476
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 220 Times
in
163 Posts
I'm specifically looking to avoid spinning out, which happens on descents somewhere around the low to mid 30s (MPH). Most of the hills I ride are only a mile or two - but it's enough to be mildly annoying, especially when trying to get speed back on a straight stretch after hitting a switchback.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
I'm specifically looking to avoid spinning out, which happens on descents somewhere around the low to mid 30s (MPH). Most of the hills I ride are only a mile or two - but it's enough to be mildly annoying, especially when trying to get speed back on a straight stretch after hitting a switchback.
Also remember that if you are "spun out" at 35mph with a 50-11 that will only increase to 37mph on a 53-11.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 58
Bikes: 2016 Charge Plug 2, Citizen Miami folding bike
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
9 Posts
My bike had a Claris group on it that included a 50-34 crank and 11-32 rear cogs. I did not like some of the big jumps between the gears so I switched to a Shimano 105 group with a 52-36 crank and an 11-30 11 speed cassette and I absolutely love it. There are no more large jumps between gears and I find that I am actually faster on the bike now. My commute is mostly flat with some hills and almost always a headwind in one of the directions so I am rarely in the small ring up front. I have only had the new set for a couple commutes, but I think it will be awhile before I spin out the 52-11 as I have been up to 35 MPH and still had two cogs left on the cassette.
#12
Senior Member
53/39 + 11-32 will give you the same low gear and a slightly higher top gear than 50/34 + 11-28.
Bicycle Gear Calculator
Bicycle Gear Calculator
#13
Jet Jockey
I used to put money and time into modifying my cranks to 52-36.
Now it’s standard in a lot of places. Hooray for me!
Typically run a 12-27 cassette. 52-12 is all the taller I need
Now it’s standard in a lot of places. Hooray for me!
Typically run a 12-27 cassette. 52-12 is all the taller I need
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,931 Times
in
2,556 Posts
Ben
#15
Jet Jockey
Eddy raced with a 52-13? Maybe 53-13?
Point being, a mere mortal like myself doesn’t need a taller gear than Eddy.
Point being, a mere mortal like myself doesn’t need a taller gear than Eddy.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 595
Bikes: Bianchi Oltre XR4 Celeste, De Rosa SK Pininfarina, Giant TCR SL, Giant Revolt Advanced Revolt 0 Gravel Bike, Trek Madone SLR, Cervelo R5 Disk
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 124 Times
in
65 Posts
My favorite set up is a mid compact 52-36 with an 11-30 cassette. But I must admit I love using a 50T from a compact on climbs up to 6%.
#18
Sophomore Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,059 Times
in
633 Posts
How well does that front shifting work? Sounds like it would be a nightmare without some really good chainrings.
If I'm in any doubt about running out of gears, I'll just put on a triple and forget about it. Plus, that lets you use a reasonable middle ring, like a 38 or a 40, so that you won't always be running on your small cogs with a crossed-up chain during times you're out of the big ring.
If I'm in any doubt about running out of gears, I'll just put on a triple and forget about it. Plus, that lets you use a reasonable middle ring, like a 38 or a 40, so that you won't always be running on your small cogs with a crossed-up chain during times you're out of the big ring.
#19
Junior Member
I would go Compact. I have never needed to go faster, but I have needed better climbing gears but I have an old bike with 52/42 biopace up front and 13 - 28 in back. 42x28 doesn't cut it for steep hills at all. I doubt 42x31 would cut it either. I'd rather have the flexibility for more hill climbs, than a few more MPH down hills.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,752
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4391 Post(s)
Liked 3,016 Times
in
1,865 Posts
I guess it depends on the terrane. On my main road bike I have a somewhat unconventional combination of a 53/39 and a 12-27 in back. This works for me in Minnesota and isn't bad when I go ride the hills of Wisconsin. On the other hand, when I did some serious climbs in California last year, I was dearly wishing for some easier gears. On my second road bike I have a compact 50/34 and also a 12-27. That's better for climbing, but if I really want acceleration down a hill, I wish I had an 11 in back. I keep thinking I should make a change, but I haven't yet.
If I were shopping for a new bike, I might think hard about a 52/36. That seems like a great compromise.
If I were shopping for a new bike, I might think hard about a 52/36. That seems like a great compromise.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times
in
740 Posts
I have three road bikes. One is the traditional 53/39 10 sp. w/ 12x28, one is 50/34 10 SP. w/12x28 and the latest (CAAD 12) is 11 sp. 52/36 w/ 11X30. The standard crank is a bit much for me at this point in the season. The other two are pretty similar except the mid-compact gives me a bit more flexibility and a higher top end. The bottom end is similar and the top is a bit, but not that much more.
#22
Senior Member
How well does that front shifting work? Sounds like it would be a nightmare without some really good chainrings.
If I'm in any doubt about running out of gears, I'll just put on a triple and forget about it. Plus, that lets you use a reasonable middle ring, like a 38 or a 40, so that you won't always be running on your small cogs with a crossed-up chain during times you're out of the big ring.
If I'm in any doubt about running out of gears, I'll just put on a triple and forget about it. Plus, that lets you use a reasonable middle ring, like a 38 or a 40, so that you won't always be running on your small cogs with a crossed-up chain during times you're out of the big ring.
In all honesty, I really only use the small ring in the mountains & generally it's one chainring shift at the base of each climb and one and the crest of each climb. I've never really had any problems with the front shifting.
I run Etap on one bike and Red mechanical on another. No issues with either. I've got friends on mechanical Ultegra and Ultegra Di-2 as well as Etap. We do maintain our bikes - change the chains when needed and don't run worn chainrings.
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
1 Post
I look at the smallest gear I need and the largest. Say 42-32 and 53-12. Convert those to gear inches. (42/32 X 27 =) 35.4 GI and 119 GI. Now you can look at the chainrings you want to use and see what cassette results or vice versa. Say you really like the spacing on a 11-28 cassette. 119/27 X 11 = 48.5. 35.4/27 X 28 = 36.7 So a 48-36 by 11-28 will be near identical to a 53-42 X 12-32.
Or say you really want a 50-34. So 50 X 27/119 = 11.3 and 34 X 27/35.4 = 25.9 A 50-34 by 11-26 will also get you the same gearing.
Actually, after I decided to go 9-speed years ago, I purchased several different cassettes and a couple of outside cogs so I can have two wheels built up in nearly any combo from 12, 13 or 14 to 23, 25 or 28. (I've used 53-42-28 chainrings for decades.)
Ben
Or say you really want a 50-34. So 50 X 27/119 = 11.3 and 34 X 27/35.4 = 25.9 A 50-34 by 11-26 will also get you the same gearing.
Actually, after I decided to go 9-speed years ago, I purchased several different cassettes and a couple of outside cogs so I can have two wheels built up in nearly any combo from 12, 13 or 14 to 23, 25 or 28. (I've used 53-42-28 chainrings for decades.)
Ben
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT (Formerly Los Angeles, CA)
Posts: 1,145
Bikes: 2008 Cannondale Synapse -- 2014 Cannondale Quick CX
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times
in
54 Posts
Lets say in back you have an 11-cog cassette. And in front you have a double. Common choices are the 11-35t, 11-28t, 11-30t, 11-32t, and 11-34t.
With a 50/34 in front, and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.36:1. Highest will be 4.55:1
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.44:1. Highest will be 4.73:1
With a 53/39 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.56:1. Highest will be 4.82:1
Now lets do the same exercise with an 11-34t in back:
With a 50/34 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1:1. Highest will be 4.55:1.
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.06:1. Highest will be 4.73:1.
With a 53/39 in front an d an 11-34 in back your lowest gear ratio will be 1.15:1. Highest will be 4.82:1.
So why wouldn't everyone want the broadest range of gears possible? Because the spacing between gears in the 11-25 cassette is much closer than in the 11-34 cassette, making it a lot easier on the narrowly-spaced cassette to fine tune your cadence to fall within the best power/cadence balance when riding in less hilly terrain. A broadly spaced cassette will leave you wishing you had a gear between the gear steps when you ride at speed down a long flat or slightly inclined/declined road.
But that 11-25 cassette is going to suck for climbing steep grades. The best cassette for you is the one that provides the low end you need, and the spacing you need. The front end plays into this as well, of course. So the whole thing is a series of trade-offs and optimizations that have to be configured to meet the individual rider's needs given the terrain this rider encounters.
It's unfortunate that triple cranksets have gotten such a bad rap in recent years. Sure, if all you ever tried in the triple-crankset world is low end stuff, it's going to be kind of lousy. Higher end stuff will perform better, but is becoming harder to find. On my Cannondale Synapse, with 105 components I have a 50/39/30 in front, and in back a 10sp 12-30 cassette. With this I get reasonable spacing between gears for good power-band efficiency, while still getting some good low gears (as low as 1:1) for climbing Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood canyons near my home. To get this range in a compact double I would need a 34t rear cassette, and in a 10sp setup that's going to leave some big gaps. So I would have to swap out my rear mech including shifters for an 11sp setup to get to an 11-34t cassette, which would still have more gaps than I have in my 10sp 12-30 cassette.
My bike originally came with that 50/39/30 in front, and a 12-25 in back. It was fine living in LA, but not the right cassette for where I ride now that I've moved to the Southeast corner of the Salt Lake valley. I swapped to an 11-28, and later to 12-30, and am not ashamed that the 12-30 is a great cassette for long, steep, sustained climbs.
With a 50/34 in front, and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.36:1. Highest will be 4.55:1
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.44:1. Highest will be 4.73:1
With a 53/39 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.56:1. Highest will be 4.82:1
Now lets do the same exercise with an 11-34t in back:
With a 50/34 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1:1. Highest will be 4.55:1.
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.06:1. Highest will be 4.73:1.
With a 53/39 in front an d an 11-34 in back your lowest gear ratio will be 1.15:1. Highest will be 4.82:1.
So why wouldn't everyone want the broadest range of gears possible? Because the spacing between gears in the 11-25 cassette is much closer than in the 11-34 cassette, making it a lot easier on the narrowly-spaced cassette to fine tune your cadence to fall within the best power/cadence balance when riding in less hilly terrain. A broadly spaced cassette will leave you wishing you had a gear between the gear steps when you ride at speed down a long flat or slightly inclined/declined road.
But that 11-25 cassette is going to suck for climbing steep grades. The best cassette for you is the one that provides the low end you need, and the spacing you need. The front end plays into this as well, of course. So the whole thing is a series of trade-offs and optimizations that have to be configured to meet the individual rider's needs given the terrain this rider encounters.
It's unfortunate that triple cranksets have gotten such a bad rap in recent years. Sure, if all you ever tried in the triple-crankset world is low end stuff, it's going to be kind of lousy. Higher end stuff will perform better, but is becoming harder to find. On my Cannondale Synapse, with 105 components I have a 50/39/30 in front, and in back a 10sp 12-30 cassette. With this I get reasonable spacing between gears for good power-band efficiency, while still getting some good low gears (as low as 1:1) for climbing Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood canyons near my home. To get this range in a compact double I would need a 34t rear cassette, and in a 10sp setup that's going to leave some big gaps. So I would have to swap out my rear mech including shifters for an 11sp setup to get to an 11-34t cassette, which would still have more gaps than I have in my 10sp 12-30 cassette.
My bike originally came with that 50/39/30 in front, and a 12-25 in back. It was fine living in LA, but not the right cassette for where I ride now that I've moved to the Southeast corner of the Salt Lake valley. I swapped to an 11-28, and later to 12-30, and am not ashamed that the 12-30 is a great cassette for long, steep, sustained climbs.
#25
Senior Member
Lets say in back you have an 11-cog cassette. And in front you have a double. Common choices are the 11-35t, 11-28t, 11-30t, 11-32t, and 11-34t.
With a 50/34 in front, and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.36:1. Highest will be 4.55:1
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.44:1. Highest will be 4.73:1
With a 53/39 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.56:1. Highest will be 4.82:1
Now lets do the same exercise with an 11-34t in back:
With a 50/34 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1:1. Highest will be 4.55:1.
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.06:1. Highest will be 4.73:1.
With a 53/39 in front an d an 11-34 in back your lowest gear ratio will be 1.15:1. Highest will be 4.82:1.
So why wouldn't everyone want the broadest range of gears possible? Because the spacing between gears in the 11-25 cassette is much closer than in the 11-34 cassette, making it a lot easier on the narrowly-spaced cassette to fine tune your cadence to fall within the best power/cadence balance when riding in less hilly terrain. A broadly spaced cassette will leave you wishing you had a gear between the gear steps when you ride at speed down a long flat or slightly inclined/declined road.
But that 11-25 cassette is going to suck for climbing steep grades. The best cassette for you is the one that provides the low end you need, and the spacing you need. The front end plays into this as well, of course. So the whole thing is a series of trade-offs and optimizations that have to be configured to meet the individual rider's needs given the terrain this rider encounters.
It's unfortunate that triple cranksets have gotten such a bad rap in recent years. Sure, if all you ever tried in the triple-crankset world is low end stuff, it's going to be kind of lousy. Higher end stuff will perform better, but is becoming harder to find. On my Cannondale Synapse, with 105 components I have a 50/39/30 in front, and in back a 10sp 12-30 cassette. With this I get reasonable spacing between gears for good power-band efficiency, while still getting some good low gears (as low as 1:1) for climbing Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood canyons near my home. To get this range in a compact double I would need a 34t rear cassette, and in a 10sp setup that's going to leave some big gaps. So I would have to swap out my rear mech including shifters for an 11sp setup to get to an 11-34t cassette, which would still have more gaps than I have in my 10sp 12-30 cassette.
My bike originally came with that 50/39/30 in front, and a 12-25 in back. It was fine living in LA, but not the right cassette for where I ride now that I've moved to the Southeast corner of the Salt Lake valley. I swapped to an 11-28, and later to 12-30, and am not ashamed that the 12-30 is a great cassette for long, steep, sustained climbs.
With a 50/34 in front, and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.36:1. Highest will be 4.55:1
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.44:1. Highest will be 4.73:1
With a 53/39 in front and an 11-25 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.56:1. Highest will be 4.82:1
Now lets do the same exercise with an 11-34t in back:
With a 50/34 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1:1. Highest will be 4.55:1.
With a 52/36 in front and an 11-34 in back, your lowest gear ratio will be 1.06:1. Highest will be 4.73:1.
With a 53/39 in front an d an 11-34 in back your lowest gear ratio will be 1.15:1. Highest will be 4.82:1.
So why wouldn't everyone want the broadest range of gears possible? Because the spacing between gears in the 11-25 cassette is much closer than in the 11-34 cassette, making it a lot easier on the narrowly-spaced cassette to fine tune your cadence to fall within the best power/cadence balance when riding in less hilly terrain. A broadly spaced cassette will leave you wishing you had a gear between the gear steps when you ride at speed down a long flat or slightly inclined/declined road.
But that 11-25 cassette is going to suck for climbing steep grades. The best cassette for you is the one that provides the low end you need, and the spacing you need. The front end plays into this as well, of course. So the whole thing is a series of trade-offs and optimizations that have to be configured to meet the individual rider's needs given the terrain this rider encounters.
It's unfortunate that triple cranksets have gotten such a bad rap in recent years. Sure, if all you ever tried in the triple-crankset world is low end stuff, it's going to be kind of lousy. Higher end stuff will perform better, but is becoming harder to find. On my Cannondale Synapse, with 105 components I have a 50/39/30 in front, and in back a 10sp 12-30 cassette. With this I get reasonable spacing between gears for good power-band efficiency, while still getting some good low gears (as low as 1:1) for climbing Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood canyons near my home. To get this range in a compact double I would need a 34t rear cassette, and in a 10sp setup that's going to leave some big gaps. So I would have to swap out my rear mech including shifters for an 11sp setup to get to an 11-34t cassette, which would still have more gaps than I have in my 10sp 12-30 cassette.
My bike originally came with that 50/39/30 in front, and a 12-25 in back. It was fine living in LA, but not the right cassette for where I ride now that I've moved to the Southeast corner of the Salt Lake valley. I swapped to an 11-28, and later to 12-30, and am not ashamed that the 12-30 is a great cassette for long, steep, sustained climbs.
For instance the first 1t jump on a 50/11-28 is 15t to 14t or about 90" to 96" gear inches, or about 23 to 24 mph. Fairly fast. On a 50/11-34 there are no 1t jups, but the gearing is more useful in the 50" to 90" gear inch range, that I believe many solo riders tend to use a lot. For that reason the 11-34 is in fact more useful for me than the 11-28 and the 11-25.
Bicycle Gear Calculator