I love compact!

[MallyG]

Been riding my compact chainset for a few weeks now (50/36) and I have to say that I love it. I wonder if compact will be the way the whole industry moves over the next couple of years - certainly all the top-end Italian bikes I saw this summer seemed to be sporting either 50/36 or 50/34. Maybe the way we pedal is changing, either as a result of spinning classes, or could it be that so many 'roadies' are ex-'mounties', or we've all been watching Lance demonstrating that an increased cadence can work wonders. Dunno, but I certainly can't say I miss the 53 and I do get a bit extra on the climbs.

[RedCoeurd'Acier]

MallyG, how is your average speed with the compact crankset?? Did you lose any speed? Do you feel fresher at the end of your rides?? Which compact crankset are you using? thanks.......... :)

[flydhest]

I don't think I get why more people don't just ride 13/29 cassettes. For that matter, why did the industry go for compact cranks and not larger (or rather back to) cassettes. MTB gruppos already have them so the transition should be easier.

[BarryG]

Seems to me that the compact is problematic on undulating terrain - can't quite get a low enough gear with the 50 when road turns up a bit or a high enough gear with the 36/34 on slight downhills to avoid frequent shifts back and forth between chainrings and 3-4 cogs in the rear at the same time. Am I missing something or isn't a compact a prescription for lots of shifting? I noticed a significant change when going from 52/42 to 52/39 and a compact would be much more so.

[Ginger]

I love my 13/29 campy cassette, it "fixed" many of the climbing problems I had, it's easier on my knees, and the gear gradation works well for me. I had thought of going to the compact crank, but changing the rear cassette and rear derailleur was the cheaper proposition. And it worked!

Now I just need to work on the motor...

[flydhest]

Ginger kicks booty!

[Fixed]

bro I don't think they'll be to big in fla. cheers :beer:

[dauwhe]

It all depends on how strong you are, as well as what terrain you ride, etc.

Myself, I usually ride 46/36/24 with a 13-30!

The perfect compact for me would probably be 46/30 with a 13-30. I can survive with 46/34, but there's certain rides in the area I would avoid with that gearing.

Dave Cramer
Brattleboro, VT

[Argos]

FlyDHest,

I know what you are saying, and it makes sense for the "double" crowd, but the Compact is, partially, aimed squarely at the egos of the "Triple" market.

Now, no one get offended. I do not mean you aren't strong enough if you have a compact on a bike. I just mean that it is a lighter alternative to a triple for those that need some LOW gearing, but not all the low gearing.

For the "Double" Crowd, I do think that it is a very rational gearing. Remember, just 15 years ago bikes were still coming with the 52/42. The European 53/39 gave us more spin over our mtn passes (sarcasm, it was to lower the amount of part numbers internationally).

I do feel that most recreational riders use too hard of a gear. I see plenty of folks killing themselves in a 53/13 at 50 RPM, but what can you do?

We can all find the right cadence for most circumstances and not be using all of our Gear combinations, but that's because we on't all live in areas of extreme topography. I'm in central NC, and I can't think of anything around here I may need a compact for. I can't find anything I even need a 25 for, but if I were to go only 3-4 hours (maybe less, I'm still learning my way around) West, there are some things with quite a bit of ooomph that may make me change my gearing.

On another thread, perhaps my "Garage Door" thread, I was talking about building up a rain bike. I've been considering putting a compact on it, if I cannot order it with one. We shall see.

[Dave]

A 50/36 does the same thing as a cassette that starts and ends with one cog larger. Nothing earth shattering there.

A 50/34 is a larger percentage change than a 53/39, so it requires more cog shifting after every shift between the rings. Some find that a PITA.

For Campy users, it makes more sense to use 13-29. If you don't need it often, then the 12-25 should be low enough. Swap to the 13-29 only when needed.

I gave a fellow rider a lesson in the advantge of a triple in the mountains, just this Saturday, before the big snow hit. This rider came up on me from behind and passed my like I was standing still. After a few minutes though, I noticed he wasn't more than 50 yards ahead, so I spun a high cadence and easily bridged up to him. This guy was no spring chicken (like me) but obviously in great shape, with extremely low body fat. He was only carrying a 39/25 low. I could tell he was going about as hard as he could (me too), so I kept on his wheel for about 3 miles. At that point the grade increased from moderate to the "high grade" for 2 miles. He quickly ran out of gear and had to alternate standing, even on the less-steep initial section of high grade. I stayed spinning in a 28/21 (same as a 39/29). After only a half mile or so I got rested up while watching the rider ahead struggle, so I bumped up my cadence and left him behind. Eventually I used my 28/23 and even my 28/25 for a few seconds. When he arrived at the top several minutes behind me, he said I convinced him to try a triple. It might not be macho, but it can get the job done more efficiently.

[Ray]

Seems to me that the compact is problematic on undulating terrain - can't quite get a low enough gear with the 50 when road turns up a bit or a high enough gear with the 36/34 on slight downhills to avoid frequent shifts back and forth between chainrings and 3-4 cogs in the rear at the same time. Am I missing something or isn't a compact a prescription for lots of shifting? I noticed a significant change when going from 52/42 to 52/39 and a compact would be much more so.
Again, depends on your strength. For someone who can really take full advantage of a 53-39, the compact would probably be problematic. A lot of us just aren't that strong. I ride a 48-34 crank and often combine it with an mtb cassette, which allows me to stay in the big ring for a lot of riding, including rolling hills and gentle climbs and gives me very very low gears for the when the road gets seriously steep. I don't use my lowest two gears more than a few times a year, but I've never been sorry to have them. I personally find myself crosschaining and jumping between chainrings all the time with a standard crank, while a compact works perfectly for me. Even when I use a more standard road cassette, I tend to stay in the big ring for flats and easy rollers, and the little ring for any climbing.

-Ray

[Ginger]

So sad...

I was doing to do a search on the old forum for Alpine gearing to dig up some text from our DBRK, however it seems the old forum is gone. :-(

[Tailwinds]

I have a compact crank (50-34) on my Litespeed w/a 12/27 cassette. I do find myself shifting lots in undulating terrain, but it is great on long climbing rides here in CO. I don't usually need the lowest gear, but it's certainly never a hindrance to have it. Now, if I lived back in FL, I'd hate the big gear jumps. I used to have a 53-39 on this bike when I moved here. With the compact, my times up climbs have not suffered a bit, and I am able to recover more quickly, too.

I had a Campy 53-39 and 13/29 cassette on the Kirk, and I prefer that overall to the setup on the Litespeed. It's quieter, and I don't have to shift so much on undulating terrain. My hands also are quite comfortable on the Campy hoods.

I tried a triple and didn't like all the trimming, noise, and how finicky it was.

[jckid]

I tried a compact 34/50, but I didn't really like it. It does give you better gearing for hill climbing (although not as good as a triple), but the jump from 34 to 50 is just too huge. Also, with the 50, you spin out a lot faster than with a 53. As a female rider, I have no ego issues with running a triple, so that's what I'm putting on my new build.

[BarryG]

I tried a triple and didn't like all the trimming, noise, and how finicky it was.
Based on the preponderance of similar accounts versus my actual experience, I have to conclude that the majority of triples out there just aren't set up properly. Been riding U9/10 triples for 7 years without any of these problems.

[tch]

Based on the preponderance of similar accounts versus my actual experience, I have to conclude that the majority of triples out there just aren't set up properly. Been riding U9/10 triples for 7 years without any of these problems.
Love mine. Here in New England, the terrain is deceptively varied. Nothing is long -- but it makes up for distance in degree. It's nothing to go from my 52/12 to my 30/23 in the space of a 1/4 mile. I don't find it finicky, noisy, or difficult to trim.

[SoCalSteve]

I have triples on all my bikes D/A 10's....When they are set up properly, it is like you are using a double 52/39 and have a bail out gear 30 when needed. (hopefully not often)

Just one mans (big man's) opinion.

Steve

PS: a triple is all in the way the front der is adjusted. If its done properly, its totally seemless. You would never even know.

[Ken Robb]

I have 50-34 x 12-27 10spd on Legend, 175mm cranks--I had 53-39 DA on it but I needed lower gears. The compact does it for me though there are times when I shift the ring and do two clicks on the back at the same time. It's no big problem.

I think my favorite gearing now is 48-38-28 x 12-27 9 spd. 175mm cranks

My CSI is 53-39 x 13-29 10 spd Chorus 172.5 mm cranks and that gets the job done for me except for really long steep hills.

My oldie has 52-42 x 12-28 Nuovo Record 170mm cranks and I have to plan my routes on that one to avoid more than moderate hills.

FWIW, I think it's worth trying different length cranks. I was surprised how easy it is to spin the 170mm and was equally surprised at how I could muscle up hills with the 180mm. Most fitters want to put me on 175mm but I can use them all. If you want a faster spin and less pressure on your knees try shorter cranks. If you can spin like crazy you may get more power if you can spin the longer ones equally fast. If there is no way you can or want to turn high RPM maybe the longer cranks will help you get more power at the same rpm.

I must say I felt a little strain on my knees when I was riding the 180 cranks but I don't know if it was due to the extra flexion caused by the length or the fact that I was using the leverage and muscle to compensate for the lack of a gear as low as I prefer. Sometime I'd like to try a 180 compact or triple to answer that question.

[William]

Am I officially "Old School" now? :rolleyes:


William ;)

[Ken Robb]

William--you're just STRONG!!

[William]

William--you're just STRONG!!

Wheeew! Thanks. I was begining to feel outdated. ;)

William

[Argos]

William,

You are strong, and with 180's you are probably riding a Big Unit (see other posts) but Old school would be 52/42 with Bio-Pace! Ha! :D

[William]

William,

You are strong, and with 180's you are probably riding a Big Unit (see other posts) but Old school would be 52/42 with Bio-Pace! Ha! :D

Should I admit that I have a couple of those at the bottom of one of my parts boxes :confused: ..........naw, I better not.


William ;)

[jeffg]

but the real key, as Dave points out, is whether we are talking a 14 tooth jump or a 16 tooth.

My favorite mountain setup is a 48/34, 12-27. I tried using a 53/39, 13-29 on my Campy bike and I do really like it, but I think the former is better. I have ridden DCs with lots of climbing on both setups. This year, for the Dolomites and Mt. Ventoux (the second time up Ventoux, even from the easy side, is tough) I swapped for a 50/34 since I wanted at least a 34X27 and you need to give up a 12 for that, and a 48/13 starts looking a bit thin.

But, after bettering my time in the Dolomite Marathon by over an hour versus using a 39X27, I'll take the compact anyday for the mountains. Plus, a 50/36 or 48/34 matched with an 11-23 would still work for me if in flatter terrain, though I hate riding on the flat!

[ClutchCargo]

Am I officially "Old School" now? :rolleyes:


William ;)

you're officially a "flatlander" !

ride on! :)

(53x39; 11-21/12-23)

[mavic1010]

I prefer to use a 50/34 with a 12-25 cassette. This is similar to a 53/39 with a 13-29. I believe the 29 is slightly easier gearing than the 25 with the compact. The only issue I have when "trying" to climb is that the 13-29 has larger jumps..it goes from a 23, to a 26, then a 29...I prefer smaller jumps with the 12-25 cassette...makes it easier to spin up a hill.

[William]

you're officially a "flatlander" !

ride on! :)

(53x39; 11-21/12-23)

I climb on those my friend....and the 23 is my gear of last... don't use at all costs if I don't absolutely positively have to only if I'm about to fall over on my side and split my skull.....resort. Oregon & Rhode Island.

William :)

PS: I went through part of this season with a 53 x 42. When my frame came back and was built back up I could have sworn I put the 39 on. I had been riding the Too Small Bianchi I didn't notice until later I had the 42 on there.Doh! :crap:

[Dr. Doofus]

depends


racing, I can't see using a 50 ring -- there have been times where I've needed that 52x12, and not just in a sprint

training, a 34 would be great for those short steep hills where I want to stay seated, keep a high cadence and keep within a HR/Power zone...that doesn't work in a 39x23...but I also am not much of a cycling talent and can't climb for crap anyway