New Compact Crankset: suggestions?

Because 53 is not for me. I would take more benefits to have a compact one. I studied this in deep with forums, reviews and colleagues. 50 is for everybody. 53 is for pros or elite cyclists. Moreover, you can use different configurations of rings when you have the compact, more flexibility overall. With 53/39 you can't change anything.

Again, how so????  There is no more "flexibility" in a compact than there is in a regular set up.  It has the exact same limitations.

And whoever said that 53 is for pros and 50 is for everyone else???  That is just silly!

I have yet to do any race of any kind (road or tri) where I cannot comfortably get by using my 53/39 - including hilly courses.

Now, if you are completely geared out and cannot climb in the 39 (and you've already exhausted your cassette choices even with a 27 in the back), then yes, perhaps it is time to downsize.  But I seriously doubt that is the case.

You are not magically going to gain any speed, pace, cadence or power by going down.

Again, I ask ....... why????

Edit: The only marginal advantage is being able to run a closer stepped cassette for fine tuning choices to allow you to keep your cadence consistent throughout.  But I do that with an 11-21 on most courses.

that is the same reason I want to change. 90rpm with 53 and what? 12? 11? Oh no, on flat road is not for me. Downhills for sure.

And what about going for an HIM with 15% uphill of 500meters to be done twice in June? 53-39? For sure I do it but I need to run 21k afterwards...and I want to do it fast!

53-39 on 15% uphill, can burn my legs with 50rpm. I prefer 50-34 and 70-80s, this will keep legs fresher for the run.

Do you agree Daremo?

No, because .... there is no such thing as "keeping the legs fresher for the run."  And show me a normal race course that is going to have 15% grades.  Yes, I know a few, but the reality is, even pro road races rarely have sections longer than 1 - 2k's at that grade.  And I don't care if you have a 34x27, pretty much every rider out there is going to be grinding on that sort of grade.

This is what it all boils down to: if you cannot push 8 mph up a hill in one gear (arbitrary number for explanation) at a certain cadence, you are not magically going to be able to push it at 8 mph in an easier gear at the same sort of cadence!  You're going to shift and you're going to slow down.  It requires "X" power to push you and your body up a hill.  If you aren't generating that sort of power, you simply are not going to be able to climb at that rate.

Sure, you'll be able to go slower up the hill when you are completely maxed out, but that is about it ........ as of right now, that seems to be the predominant "discussion" - to give one the ability to go slower up the hill.

I rarely ever push a 53 up a hill unless I am hammering it.  That is why there is a 39.  At Lake Placid I spun every single hill in my easiest gear of 39x23.  No one passed me up a single hill and my cadence was comfortably around 80 - 90 the whole time.  That was going around 9 - 12 mph during the steepest climbing portions.  And that is one of the hillier races on the circuit.

To each their own as it is your Euro, but as of now I have still not seen a single compelling reason to recommend them to anyone.

look at Witches'hill here .

or Monaco 70.3 in France...

As I said, there are some ...... you can throw in Savageman and Norseman.  But usual races do not have those sorts of grades.

Again, didn't really address the reason as to why someone would choose a compact over a regular.  Because again, if they cannot climb a hill comfortably at a certain speed, changing gearing is not going to make it any easier at that same speed ..... only slower .......

I see Daremo's point, but I feel his statements are for STRONG cyclists or for racing. I've been getting trashed by Cat3/4 guys on my weekend climbs, and most of them ride compacts or at least of a 27 for the big hill climbs here. With the non-racing group I ride with, where there are mostly age 45+ folks, there's not a single person in the group who doesn't have a compact setup.

Compared to these older cyclists, some of whom are female, I'm a sprightly M33, so I should be a fair amount faster than most of them. Still, when we ride together, I have to ride ALL-OUT on my 53-39 / 12-25  just to keep from tipping over on those big hill climbs, and am totally wiped out after 4000feet of climbing. In contrast, those older cyclists, who have gone slower but steadily, usually comment that "that climb isn't so bad in the small gear." I have the same experience with my low-geared mtn bike - I could kill myself by using the big ring, but most of the time, I'd prefer a 85% hard effort in the small ring that doesn't totally destroy me - I can train for longer distances and do more frequent rides. 

I'd definitely go with my 53/39 for races, even hilly ones. You're supposed to hammer on race day! But in training, I feel that it's not a great idea to be hammering 110% just to survive the climb every weekend - I'd gladly take the speed hit rather than climb for 60 minutes in my red zone. (My rides are usually 3+hrs - need stuff leftover to get back!)

Which is exactly what I'm saying.  If you really need to gear down to climb, and merely switching out the rear isn't doing it for you, then by all means go compact!

But there is this incorrect perception in the tri world that changing out to a compact will magically make someone faster and/or "save their legs for the run" as plissken mentioned earlier.  That is simply not going to happen.  Now I do not know if he is looking to get them for that reason, but that is the felling I get as he mentioned "other" triathletes have told him exactly what I mentioned above.  It simply does not work that way.  If that was the case, everyone would run the same gearing as it would give a marked advantage over someone else's.

With regards to speed though - I wonder if there may be an "overall net" speed benefit from the big climbs on a smaller compact gearset if you prevent yourself from frequently redlining into past your lactate threshold zone. I know for sure, if I compare my bike or run OVERALL speed for the same distance, one done at a rock-steady intensity/HR, versus an interval-type session with big peaks/troughs in intensity, the rock-steady pace wins out every time for overall speed. A compact set could thus help "even out" the intensity/hilliness of some nasty courses, and thus allow for a more even intensity, and thus faster overall time.

Of course, if you're not redzoning in your 53-39/12-25, there's little chance that the compact will afford any speed advantage.

It's funny - I'm actually finding myself shopping for a TRIPLE now. I'd love to climb Mt Baldy in Socal now, but there is no chance that I'd survive the last few miles on my current gearset - and I'm not a particularly weak rider. 12 mile climb, 4669 feel of all uphill, Avg 7% with the last 2 miles exceeding 10%, and peaking around 12% for the final mile. Ouch!

Depends on the bike but some you can't put a triple on due to the clearance on the frame. My bike it won't work I've learned as I've been investigating easier gearing options for a year now.

You can also get a 11-32 or 11-34 10 speed cassette and put on a mountain bike rear derailuer which is probably less expensive for doing mountain type climbs.

Excellent post! Thanks! As you can see, most of the post are not answering my original question while you did it.

Here I wanted to try to understand the differences between brands on compact crankset but people are debating why switching on compact or not.

Anyway, I have read about FSA cranksets called back for serious problems which they had to fix.

Fulcrum is a sub-brand of Campagnolo. Solid on many other parts but I don't know on crancksets.

Zipp is very very expensive and it is good you post your feedback. I am thinking about that...

Otherwise Shimano but so far as I understood, only on Ultegra version and not DuraAce compact (it doesn't exist????). I would be very disappointed to switch to Ultegra from Dura Ace 53/39 even if it is a very solid and cheap solution...what do you think?

The differences between Ultegra and Dura Ace cranks are minimal at best, really only weight.  You have to be pretty "uppity" to feel like it was some sort of big downgrade.

With that said, I run the Vuma Quad (in the real size) on my road bike.  The few problems with it are, it is a little bit more flex than my Dura Ace was and the chain ring bolt pattern is proprietary, you have no choice but to run their chainrings.  But the crank is total bad azz and crazy light.

I haven't heard too much bad about FSA myself.

One thing to try is looking for some used ones here, on ST or e-bay.  You will save a TON of money and probably get a better crank in the process.