colnago62

Maelochs

Probably someone at Trek crunched the numbers and realized that the simplicity of ordering and installing only one type of crank was a benefit given that so few riders really compete at high levels ... and those that do are as likely to use some other specific and personally chosen crank set anyway.

This says nothing about the availability of higher-toothed rings, just that production Treks get what, frankly is all the gear most riders will ever use and more. People who want to order bikes differently equipped might be able to do so. No word on that yet, from that article at least. Not necessarily an expensive special order/ complete build---maybe a phone call to the factory and a week's wait? Who knows? Also, installing a new crank set is about as easy as maintenance gets

Some folks here have complained that the bike companies only sell imitations of race bikes. This strikes me as a departure from that, an acknowledgment that in the real world, not a lot of riders are spinning out in 50-11 except on downhills where an aero tuck might be more efficient anyway.

If after a season this costs trek more than it saves, I am sure the policy will be reversed.

kbarch

You almost wonder why it hadn't happened sooner. If you think about it, normally folks modify a bike (or moto or car) from stock in order to make it faster or more "high performance," but for some time, so many recreational cyclists have had to modify their stock bikes to make them easier to ride, which is sort of backwards. Yeah, this development could lead to an uptick on compact crankset listings on eBay, but maybe the reason we don't see so many standard cranksets from folks who've "downgraded" is because they hold onto them thinking they might develop into them, or move somewhere flatter. I have one sitting in a box ready to go back on the Casati one of these days.....

Lazyass

It's stupid. I hate compact cranks. No, most people won't "spin out" a 50T but that's not the issue. The issue for people like me is having to shift between the big and small rings 10x as often. If they had a 50/39 or even a 50/36 then that would be fine. The perfect combo would be something like the Tiagra 50/39/30, but of course the industry has killed the triple for the higher end groups.

gregf83 

Maelochs

I have a Tiagra 52-39 (?!) as well as a 50-39-30 that I snatched up and refuse to part with. Sorry your lazy buttocks live on terrain where you find it hard to match the bike's gearing and your own abilities ... but since you know what you need .... you can still get what you need. You are an exception. (Most of us are .... )

I got that triple off an Ebay site ... some bike camp or something stripped them off a fleet of rental bikes. mine was in basically brand-new condition---like a new take-off.

Only drawback is i have to use one a limited range of britfters.

I just converted my last 52-42 to 50-34 and I find it an improvement. But I too am an exception.

Lazyass

Did my opinion upset you?

indyfabz

Demographics.

gregf83 

Bah Humbug

Meh - it's a lot cheaper to buy new chainrings than special order through P1. It's just simpler given that most people don't want/ need standards, especially since with Shimano it's all the same bolt circle now. Heck it seems more and more bikes are coming with 30+ tooth cogs on the back!

Lazyass

Well no one posts snobbish replies because they're happy.

WhyFi

If I had a 53t instead of a 50t, I'd be shifting much more often.

Besides, if the smallness of the small ring is the problem, is there anything keeping you from swapping it out to a 36 or 39? Maybe the ramps/pins aren't perfectly aligned, but I couldn't see it causing too much trouble. Also, the small chainrings are cheap - it's the big rings that are expensive enough that you might as well buy a whole new crankset.

mstateglfr 

A 50/36 allows you to shift the front 10x less often? I get that you are exaggerating for effect there, but reality is almost certainly not even 20% of what you claim.

Gearing is a fascinating thing to study, discuss, and sometime be yelled at about.
Its critical to enjoying road riding, yet it seems many don’t understand gearing. And there also seems to be a large group who think they are OK on the gear range they use, but would likely benefit from a change.

A great trend(one of very few) in road riding over the last decade has been the steady shift towards gear ranges that benefit recreational riders both novice and experienced.
Cranksets with chainrings that allow for easier climbing are popular with the masses because not everyone wants to feel like their knees are going to explode due to grind it out gearing.
Cassettes with a wide range further allow cyclists to find gearing that works for their individual needs.

All this helps with inclusion and participation is what we love- to ride.


Not everyone needs such forgiving gearing though. For those people, its understandable that other equipment needs to be on the bike. Since Lazyass can climb with a 39t without issue, then more power to him, a compact crank isn’t something he should use.
Spec’ing a bike is all about trying to figure out what the vast majority of users need. Its better to cater to 85% of riders than cater to the remaining 15% of riders.

As for the jumps between gearing for a compact crank…I just havent found it to be an issue when riding.
My current road bikes are-
48/34 crank mated to a 7 speed 12-28 cassette.
50/34 crank mated to a 9 speed 11-28 cassette.
48/32 crank mated to an 11 speed 11-32 cassette.
These are paved road bikes- so not including touring bike or gravel bike as that gearing is totally different and purpose built.

Somehow, I manage to take any of those 3 road bikes out and have fun. I manage to find the gearing I need at any given time without issue, even though the drivetrains are so vastly different. I can make flat rail trail paths work, rural county roller hill climbing work, and just don’t remember cursing at the sky in frustration because I want to pedal at a certain cadence and resistance but cant find the gear ratio to do it.
I have said it many times before, but it seems to apply here- I apparently have low standards.

mcours2006

I don't know if I am a typical recreational cyclist, and I don't know if there is such a thing because we live in different terrains. I own bikes with the following gearing combos: 53-39 with 12-15 10-speed, 50-34 with 12-28 cassette 10-speed, 50-34 with 12-25 10-speed, 46-36 with 11-32 9-speed, and 50-39-30 with 12-25 9-speed. I rarely use the 53T, as well as the 30. The 50, 46, and 39 get used the most.

So for me and my geographical terrain 50-36 is probably the most useful. Unfortunate for me that unless I upgrade to 11-speed I can't get that combo with my cranks.

noodle soup

Maybe Trek knows a little more about the industry than you do.

Just guessing.

noodle soup

what cranks are those?

Bah Humbug

Yeah 50/36 is awesome. I went with 52/36 last time around and shouldn't have; if it wouldn't mean needing to get a 50T aero ring ground for my Quarq I'd go back to it. That little bit easier did make it easier to stay in the big ring over a bunch of rollers I deal with. It wouldn't reduce front shifts by a factor of ten for me, but certainly some. Next time might be 50/36 and 11-28.

mcours2006

Well, I shouldn't say you can't. I can always just swap out the 5700/7900 cranks for 5800/6800 cranks and get the 50/36 cranksets. But if I do that I might as well go 11-speed.

noodle soup

You could go 50/39(maybe even 38), but you'd have to go with non-Shimano rings.

wphamilton

I like it, 50-34, and I don't shift it any more than I did the 53-39. I suspect that most recreational cyclists, like me, sometimes just want to creep up a hill and that's 100% of why I have a compact.

redlude97

Swapping the 34t for a 36t costs less than $20, not something I'd even worry about in the overall cost of the bike

Reeses

mcours2006

Thought about that too, but I'm not really that hard pressed to change them right now. Eventually I'll upgrade to 11-speed...or 12.

HTupolev

This is hardly news, Trek's performance road lineup has been nearly 100% 50-34 for years. The exceptions have been things like some of the Race Shop Limited bikes.

It's not like the other manufacturers provide much in the way of chainring choice through model selection, either. For instance, Specialized uses both 52-36 and 50-34 on various road models, but it's mostly broken up by bicycle tier; if you want a high-end Specialized, it's pretty much going to come stock with 52-36.

Lazyass

My average solo cruising speed on flat ground is 19-22mph, depending on wind. I'm not going to win the TDF but I'm not a weak rider. With a 34T that means I'm in my 11 or 12 tooth cog at my cadence. So almost every time I want to accelerate then yes, I have to shift to the big ring. And no, I don't like to be cruising in my small cogs the majority of the time, I don't like the extra chain wear. Basically, I just don't like it and the reasons why is none of your concern. I don't like to be cruising in my big ring the majority of the time and have to shift to the small every time I slow down. I like my chain to be in the middle of my cassette when I'm just steady cruising. That's just my thing. A 39T does that for me, and even a 36 isn't too bad.

If I didn't know what I was talking about and you knew what was better for me than I do, then I wouldn't have pulled the compact that came on my 2011 Focus off after the first month and replace it with a standard like I did.

That's my preference, that's how I've ridden for 31 years. I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else. If you have a different preference then cool, I can respect that. If you can't respect my preference then don't reply to me because you aren't going to school me on anything.