Any regrets by changing to compact cranks?

[segalpin]

Have used 53-39 for 20+ yrs. Now soon to be 48, no longer racing, living in hilly East TN, mostly riding alone or with small groups, not even fast club rides.
Think it's time to convert to a compact 50-34. Anyone out there ever regret this move?

[thenewguy11]

No regrets for me. When I moved to CO, it became abundantly clear that a compact was the way to go. I'll never ride a standard again, I wager.

[christian]

I didn't like it much - more cross chaining in the slower cruising range - 17-19 mph. I actually just bought a Record UT 53-39 crank this afternoon to replace the Record UT 50-34 that is on my bike now.

I would still use the 50-34 for Alpine climbs and events like D2R2.

At the end of the day, it's 100% terrain and personal preference related.

[572cv]

No regrets,
no tears goodbye,
don't want you back,
we'd only cry............. again.....
say goodbye again.

:D
tip of the cap to Tom Rush :beer:

[thwart]

I like 'em. A decade older than you and live in an area with many relatively short steep hills.

Gotta throw this in: with Campy (at least with the vintage stuff or the current upper end models) you don't have to do multiple individual shifts when you drop into the small ring, which makes the transition from a standard crank pretty painless.

FWIW, I have all compacts save for one triple crank bike.

[FlashUNC]

More cross chaining. But as others have said, all depends on the terrain. I keep at least one on a bike for hilly rides.

[Broccoli Cog]

I don't have any regrets at all. I live in very hilly area and feel like it is the best possible set up for me. I do a lot of group rides as well and never feel like I am missing any gears when I need them. In fact, the opposite is true when I am on the steepest grades.

[johnmdesigner]

I didn't like it much - more cross chaining in the slower cruising range - 17-19 mph. I actually just bought a Record UT 53-39 crank this afternoon to replace the Record UT 50-34 that is on my bike now.

I would still use the 50-34 for Alpine climbs and events like D2R2.

At the end of the day, it's 100% terrain and personal preference related.

HaHa!
Just sold my double to Christian and now have 50-34 on all my bikes.
I admit it took some getting used to as I rode doubles since the 80s.
I even went back to the double for a while but missed the compact.
Happier on the hills and just as fast on the flats.
Then again no two martinis ever taste the same.

[wallymann]

living in the flat-lands of SE michigan, riding in fast group rides, i always seemed to be in sub-optimal cross-chain situations.

i converted everything back, but i do have 1 set of compacts at the ready in the workshop for the infrequent trips to real mountain country. FWIW campy UTs are nice for super-duper easy crank-swappage.

[hainy]

Due to the hilly terrain here in Sydney, Australia unless you are really strong compact is the way to go.

I won't be going back

Hainy

[Louis]

My engineering approach to this problem:

1) Figure out what front:rear gear ratios you use most often. Figure out which ones you use less frequently, but also must have.

2) Create an Excel spreadsheet and calculate the ratios for the front:rear options for various crank-cassette combinations under consideration.

3) Note the gear choices in (2) that meet the requirements identified in (1)

4) Note the shift patterns and cross-chaining required to get what you need in (3) and the number of options available in the range you like.

5) Figure out what drive-train choices maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. (e.g. minimize front shifting, minimize cross-chaining, minimize ratio jumps in "sweet-spot" range, etc etc.)

6) Purchase crank-cassette combo identified in (5).

[stev0]

When I rode compact gearing before, I never felt great about the top end, as I split my time about 50/50 between flat-ish and climbing/ascending. I've been riding std gearing for a long while now.. and switching over to 52/36 on my next build after reading a lot of positive remarks here and elsewhere (mostly about the versatility of this combo). Maybe it's something you might consider as well?

has anyone regretted going to 52/36 compact?

[kayten]

The compact crank offers the best gearing options for me so far. I've raced in it, climb in it, and never regretted it. Tried going back to standard once, but it didn't work out. I guess as I grow older (50y), the compact crank gives more miles without the early bonk factor.

[Gummee]

I've got 2 of each. I switch back and forth between em and don't really notice a huge difference. There's a small difference, sure, but nothing earth shattering.

You DO have to shift an extra cog with the compacts when dropping from the big to small ring. Some people don't like that.

Nicest bit is you can run a 34-23 to get the same gears as a 39-25. Makes you look studlier with your itty bitty cassette.*

M

*for those who care about that stuff

[Len J]

It depends on cadence and speed.

Go to a gear chart and plug in your normal cadence and see if you end up cross chained at your normal speeds. If not you are Ok....if not it will drive you crazy IMO.

Len


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[efuentes]

Just go 36-50 and dont look back!

[Bud_E]

Welcome to the dark side. You'll never go back.

[avalonracing]

I raced with a 53/38 for years and was pretty happy with the set up. Since going to a compact crank my wife and I have spilt up. I don't know if was really the cause or just a very strange coincidence... but just in case think it through very carefully before making the switch.

[Lewis Moon]

Switched to a 48/39 (too cheap to buy a real compact). I find myself cross chaining way too often just because I don't switch the front as much as I should but I'll never go back unless I start racing again (mmmmm...could be!) but otherwise, as others have said, at cruising speeds, I have no need for a 53.

[Lala]

Best move I ever did. You will not regret it.

[Louis]

Has anyone out there tried a single ring in front (say, around 40 to 44 T) and an 11-34 cassette in back? (I mean on a road bike, not an MTB, where I think stuff like that is more common with a smaller front ring.)

That should cover 99.9% of most folk's required range.

[Bruce K]

I swap back and forth between 50-34 and 52-38 on my 110 BCD crank set depending on terrain (50-34 for CO rides, or rides in northern New England or western MA).

I also have some different cassettes that I have used: 11-26, 12-26, and 12-25 on flatter/rolling terrain, and 11-28 for bigger climbs.

I don't regret having the smaller bolt circle given the flexibility it has allowed me.

BK

[bironi]

I raced with a 53/38 for years and was pretty happy with the set up. Since going to a compact crank my wife and I have spilt up. I don't know if was really the cause or just a very strange coincidence... but just in case think it through very carefully before making the switch.

Changes in equipment leading to divorce - this needs another thread. I like the idea.

[Derski]

50/34; 11-28 suits me fine and not ashamed whatsoever!

[zmudshark]

I've gone back to 53/39 after trying compacts. I'm in PHX, and over 60. Hills here are very short, but can be steep, if you want. I was riding a 50/34 w10s 12-25, and prefer a 53/39 with a 13-29. There is very little hi-lo dif between the two, I just find the std 'less busy'.

I figure the next step for me will be back to the compact and use the 13-29, but I'll ride with a low gear of 39/29 for awhile, or just go slower up the hills :help:

[saab2000]

I think the 52/36 is going to be a big seller, especially with 11-speed drivetrains and 12-27 or 12-28 cassettes. That will virtually cover everything and have small steps in the middle.

[krismac23]

Switched to 52/36 praxiss rings and I race/train I hilly areas. I find it perfect for my riding style. Less cross chaining and I can switch between different cassettes for hilly or flatter rides. I've done the spreadsheets an gear ratio charts and found 52/36 as the real sweet spot. I race cat 2/3 and mostly sprint to win if that helps you.

[witcombusa]

You don't have to choose between 53/39 and 50/34. You can make them fit your needs exactly. I've got 50/39, 48/34, 46/34, 46/28, 45/28. All depends on what you need for any particular build. TA makes great rings to fine tune your prefered combo.

[tv_vt]

No regrets. Just gives you more options. May work for some and not for others. I usually run 12-27, 11-26, 11-28 or even 12-30 cassettes. But it's hilly around here and I'm pushing 60. Racers, lightweights, and others may like other setups.

[cnighbor1]

Interesting that Campagnolo has gone to 50T / 36T for their compact cranks I wonder why
My knees love compact

[Ken Robb]

I have a 50-34 with 12-26 9 speed cassette. It's fine enough that I haven't switched to the 13-29 10 speed in my parts bin.
OTOH I like triples like my 48-38-28 with 13-29; 52-42-30 w/12-27 9 speed where I do most ride in the 42 ring and the middle of the cassette, or 52-42-30 with 7 speed 11-34 for wall climbing with a load. I'm the load.:eek:

[Johnnyg]

No regrets,
no tears goodbye,
don't want you back,
we'd only cry............. again.....
say goodbye again.

:D
tip of the cap to Tom Rush :beer:
Great song. Just saw him in Sanibel, Florida. He is still doing a great show. Panama Limited. Thanks for the post.

[beeatnik]

Switched to 52/36 praxiss rings and I race/train I hilly areas. I find it perfect for my riding style. Less cross chaining and I can switch between different cassettes for hilly or flatter rides. I've done the spreadsheets an gear ratio charts and found 52/36 as the real sweet spot. I race cat 2/3 and mostly sprint to win if that helps you.

I'm a better climber with standard gearing but I'm intrigued by 52/36. If your sprint doesn't suffer and one has multiple wheelsets, seems like a win/win.

And, ya, I didn't like my compact. I felt sluggish. Anyone want to buy a 110bcd Hollowgram spider?

[Chance]

Switched to a 48/39 (too cheap to buy a real compact). I find myself cross chaining way too often just because I don't switch the front as much as I should but I'll never go back unless I start racing again (mmmmm...could be!) but otherwise, as others have said, at cruising speeds, I have no need for a 53.

Isn't that the opposite of "compact" as it affects function? In my opinion the number of teeth is irrelevant for the most part (have stated that too many times already so it's time to give it a rest), but what makes a compact function like a compact is the wide ratio between small and large rings. The 50-34 standard compact is 147%.

A standard 53-39 is only 136%. By modifying your cranks to 48-39 it became very close ratio at only 123 %. That's in the range of the old 52-42 cranks many of us liked to ride on flatter terrain because of the close ratio.;)

[Chance]

Has anyone out there tried a single ring in front (say, around 40 to 44 T) and an 11-34 cassette in back? (I mean on a road bike, not an MTB, where I think stuff like that is more common with a smaller front ring.)

That should cover 99.9% of most folk's required range.

Yes, on a road bike quite a while back. Worked fine. Used a 46 tooth (equivalent) and 11-21 cassette on flats. For steeper hills installed an 11-28. Couldn't do it now for steeper hills although for flatter terrain it would likely still work great.

[559Rando]

The only thing better than a compact double is a compact trippel (sic)!

[Louis]

The only thing better than a compact double is a compact trippel (sic)!

http://365beers.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/st-bernardus-tripel.jpg?w=470

[pdmtong]

no regrets...but unless you want/need the absolute low end 34-28/29 or 34-28...why not just change the cassette to a 13-29 /12-29 or 11-28?

[RkyMtn]

I have a 53/39 on 2 bikes and compacts on the other 2. Not a problem at all. One of the compact cranks I have a 36 small ring and I get a pretty straight line with it. The bike with the 34 is my travel bike that i take to Newport beach and do hills there. It is a blessing for sure!

[GuyGadois]

I use a compact for my daily rider but for my racing and competitive group rides a 50x11 just spins out. Heck, a 53x11 sometime feels too small.

I love the compact for climbing as I enjoy a bit more spinning then grinding. My buddy loves the grind so he'll stick with the regular crank.

GG

[eBAUMANN]

Has anyone out there tried a single ring in front (say, around 40 to 44 T) and an 11-34 cassette in back? (I mean on a road bike, not an MTB, where I think stuff like that is more common with a smaller front ring.)

That should cover 99.9% of most folk's required range.

I set up one of my cx bikes as a 1x10 with a 40t front and 11-32 rear...it's really all you need for anything other than a fast paced group ride or race. I used this rig for the 180k d2r2 last August and it performed beautifully.

Would I run a 1x10 on my only road bike? No. But it definitely has its place!

[dd74]

Tried compacts twice and never really liked them. Now I use a 13-27 or 13-29 with a 53/39. Much better IMO.

[Chance]

So, if we install 55-42 rings on a 110 bolt-circle crank, is it still a "compact"?:rolleyes:


http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/05/bikes-and-tech/shimano-goes-to-11-with-new-dura-ace_221948


Cranks: one crank, period
The most obvious change to the group is the lack of a fifth arm on the crank spider. The look is a bit bizarre at first, but after hearing the engineering reason behind the four-arm design, I like the cranks more.

There are dead spots in every pedal stroke. That’s no surprise to anyone, but Shimano decided that there was no need to build a crank that was stiff during that period of the revolution. Shimano’s super stiff, hollow chainrings allowed the removal of the fifth spider arm without reducing pedaling efficiency. The new crank also drops 52 grams from the 7900 crank.

Interestingly, Shimano has also done away with standard and compact versions for the new crank. Only one crank is offered and it’s essentially a 110mm bcd (compact) with a 24mm spindle. Obviously you must use Shimano’s new rings because of the unique spacing of the four-arm, 110mm spider. But again, thanks to the extremely stiff chainrings, Shimano will offer the crank with 50-34, 52-36, 52-38, 53-39, 54-42, and 55-42 gearing options. There will be no need to buy another crank if you decide to tackle the Dolomites for your next vacation, or take on a super fast time trial amidst your normal time scaling mountainous roads. That said, Shimano rings aren’t cheap. So choose wisely!

[oldpotatoe]

Have used 53-39 for 20+ yrs. Now soon to be 48, no longer racing, living in hilly East TN, mostly riding alone or with small groups, not even fast club rides.
Think it's time to convert to a compact 50-34. Anyone out there ever regret this move?

Do you need a lower gear of is the 53 too big of a gear?

I sell more compacts than anything and if the 34 is too small, just slap a 36 on there.

VERY few people 'need' a 53t..

[drhule33]

Certainly it depends on one's riding style and preferred cadence. I'm on the smaller side (5'9" 145 lbs) and I'm better at spinning, so a 50-34 is great for me. When I know I'll be doing a lot of climbing, I'll mate that with 12-27 in the back. I wish I had the strength to push the bigger gears, but I'm just better at spinning.

[segalpin]

Do you need a lower gear of is the 53 too big of a gear?

I sell more compacts than anything and if the 34 is too small, just slap a 36 on there.

VERY few people 'need' a 53t..

Hardly ever in the 53-12,13,14....downhill or huge tailwind. Looking for help on climbs...especially at end of long rides. Is all this talk of crosschain any worse than risk of crosschain on 53-39? Seems to me, just be aware of what gear you are in before you shift. When 10 speeds came out, everyone moaned of crosschain then.

Thoughts on just using 13-29?

[christian]

53-39, 50-39, 50-36, all ok with me on the road.

50-34, not so much.

When I'm not racing, I put a 48 on my cx bike, so it has 48-39 in the front with a 12-25 in the rear. That's a good combo too. Lots of tightly spaced gears!!!

[zap]

Christ, put a triple on our tandem a few years ago.......now I'm about to pull the trigger on a mid compact 52/36 for my new build.

Why, I like to be able to keep riding hard after 2 monster climbs. So spinning more on climbs keeps muscle's fresher for longer harder rides.

We'll see..............

[saab2000]

Thoughts on just using 13-29?

I put a 13-29 on my bike last year for a trip to France and for a big, hard, hilly ride in Virginia I've done a few times. It was the right thing to do. The 29 didn't get used much in France, though it was extremely handy the times I did shift into it. My speed didn't really drop as I was able to keep up a cadence. Worked great with my 53/39 crankset.

For seriously hilly riding this is an excellent choice.

That said, the new mid-compacts (52/36) with 11-speed cassettes will give even more possibilities and keep the ratio jumps in the middle of the cassette more manageable.

[Lewis Moon]

When I'm not racing, I put a 48 on my cx bike, so it has 48-39 in the front with a 12-25 in the rear. That's a good combo too. Lots of tightly spaced gears!!!

This is exactly what I run. Got it when I was toying with the idea of running 'cross, but I have to say I like the closely spaced gears too. It's really frustrating to be riding a long section where the gear you really want is nowhere to be found.

[christian]

When I'm actually racing, I run 42-39. Yes, I'm weeeeeak! I never actually shift off the 39 unless it's a grass drag race anyway.

[crownjewelwl]

it makes mew feel inadequate...

but i compensate with a longer stem

[wallymann]

til the viewers gaze shifts forward and notices the big ring is smaller than the cluster! :D


Nicest bit is you can run a 34-23 to get the same gears as a 39-25. Makes you look studlier with your itty bitty cassette.

[T.J.]

QUOTE=GuyGadois;1282694]I use a compact for my daily rider but for my racing and competitive group rides a 50x11 just spins out. Heck, a 53x11 sometime feels too small.

I love the compact for climbing as I enjoy a bit more spinning then grinding. My buddy loves the grind so he'll stick with the regular crank.

GG[/QUOTE]


Calculator I saw online says 53x11 at 120 rpm is 45mph....you the man

[Chance]

Hardly ever in the 53-12,13,14....downhill or huge tailwind. Looking for help on climbs...especially at end of long rides. Is all this talk of crosschain any worse than risk of crosschain on 53-39? Seems to me, just be aware of what gear you are in before you shift. When 10 speeds came out, everyone moaned of crosschain then.

Thoughts on just using 13-29?

Comes down to simple arithmetic. Cross-chaining issues are accentuated any time wider chainring spacing is mixed with tighter cassette spacing.

Everything else being equal (same total gear range for comparison of near-equals) the same typical “compact” gear in the little ring versus big ring will move further from the middle of the cassette (hence the term cross chained). Consider the following two examples. They have approximately the same gear range but the compact will have more tendency to require cross-chaining at some speeds. In my opinion as the rider needs wider cassette gears to climb, it makes typical compact ring spacing more tolerable. The opposite is also true. Which could explain in part why some people like them and others hate them. Often we don’t compare apples to apples.

50-34 cranks with 11-23 cassette
vs.
50-39 cranks with 11-26 cassette

or

50-34 cranks with 11-25 cassette
vs.
50-38 cranks with 11-28 cassette

[blantonator]

why is cross-chaining worse with a wider gap between your chainrings?

[GuyGadois]

QUOTE=GuyGadois;1282694]I use a compact for my daily rider but for my racing and competitive group rides a 50x11 just spins out. Heck, a 53x11 sometime feels too small.

I love the compact for climbing as I enjoy a bit more spinning then grinding. My buddy loves the grind so he'll stick with the regular crank.

GG


Calculator I saw online says 53x11 at 120 rpm is 45mph....you the man[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I can't spin at 120 rpms very comfortably. And yes, some of these group rides are absolutely brutal. If you are running a compact there is no way your keeping up in the final 7 miles. :bike:

[fiamme red]

And yes, some of these group rides are absolutely brutal. If I'm running a compact there is no way I'm keeping up in the final 7 miles. :bike:Fixed it for you. ;)

Unless the group is going downhill with a tailwind at 45 mph, I can't see how a 50x11 wouldn't be sufficient for someone who has decent leg speed.

[Chance]

why is cross-chaining worse with a wider gap between your chainrings?

Well, just compare either of my examples above. When comparing similar overall gearing the big-ring-to-bigger-cog combination that will result in approximately the same gear as the small-ring-to-smaller-cog is further off chainline centerline. Some riders call this the cross-over gear. That’s the point at which you get the same ratio in either small or big ring with chain crossed approximately the same amount.

For similar overall gearing based on rider needs of equal top and low requirements, the wider you space chainrings the tighter the cassette must be. This makes it even worse because a wide front shift requires even more cogs to be shifted to equal the same gear. And the very opposite also holds true for narrow front spacing.

The key is to compare apples-to-apples based on rider requirements. If not, we can come to conclusions that are unfounded.

[merlinmurph]

This 58-year-old guy put them on last year and from the first ride, I found them to provide the right gearing. My rides are typically rolly to hilly, and I'm using lower gearing than I used to. Twenty years ago, I would have stayed with a 52-39.

[Ralph]

I guess there are some of you strong enough to want to be able to use a 50X11, 52-53X12, to be able to pedal 45 MPH, live in the mountains, etc.....but I can spin up to almost 30 MPH with a 52-53X14, 49-50X13, 48X12, 45-46X11, and pick up the pace at bottom of hill at that speed, and anything faster than that I'm coasting. I bet that's true for about 98% to 99% of folks on this forum. I know there may be a few exceptions. With a cassette starting with 13, most of the time you will have a pretty good chainline riding in the 50 most of time, saving the 34 for climbing. So to me, cross chaining with a compact not an issue if set up for me and where I ride.

Still prefer a triple for when I need one, and a 52 or 50X39 when I don't. To me, a compact, while not perfect, is a compromise and kinda does it all. Just work it out in rear and change your cassettes depending on the ride. It's much easier to change cassettes and dial them n VS changing chainrings, moving FD around, etc. Don't really see why any of this is a problem to anone. Most folks on here have a bunch of cassettes in various configerations.

[Len J]

Need a new forum rule:

You can-not respond to a question about gearing without indicating your normal cruising speed and your cadence. Without that information, gearing recommendations, likes and dislikes are relativly meaningless.

IMO

Len

[rugbysecondrow]

I have both standard, compact and really compact.

The compact is 50/36 and I use it on my triathlon bike. I find for racing on flatlands imparticular, it is much more efficient as it is easier to find that right gear or make minor gear adjustments so I can spin at 90-95 rpm. On my standard, sometimes I felt like I was either too low or pushing too hard for where I wanted to be in the race.

I have a sport touring setup with a 46/34 crankset...I like it and it suits my needs. When I have a rack or gear loaded on it or pulling my kids trailer, the lower gearing helps some.

To each their own though. Enjoy.

[christian]

You can-not respond to a question about gearing without indicating your normal cruising speed and your cadence. Without that information, gearing recommendations, likes and dislikes are relativly meaningless.And where you live. I'm a pretty weak rider, but there's no hill in Westchester County, NY you can't get up in a 39. If I lived in Canazei, Italy, I'd assuredly want a compact.

[Ahneida Ride]

My engineering approach to this problem:

1) Figure out what front:rear gear ratios you use most often. Figure out which ones you use less frequently, but also must have.

2) Create an Excel spreadsheet and calculate the ratios for the front:rear options for various crank-cassette combinations under consideration.

3) Note the gear choices in (2) that meet the requirements identified in (1)

4) Note the shift patterns and cross-chaining required to get what you need in (3) and the number of options available in the range you like.

5) Figure out what drive-train choices maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. (e.g. minimize front shifting, minimize cross-chaining, minimize ratio jumps in "sweet-spot" range, etc etc.)

6) Purchase crank-cassette combo identified in (5).

Lous is right .... it's a math problem...

Figure out what gear inches you need and go from there.
If a compact does not deliver ..... you need a triple.

[mcteague]

My engineering approach to this problem:

1) Figure out what front:rear gear ratios you use most often. Figure out which ones you use less frequently, but also must have.

2) Create an Excel spreadsheet and calculate the ratios for the front:rear options for various crank-cassette combinations under consideration.

3) Note the gear choices in (2) that meet the requirements identified in (1)

4) Note the shift patterns and cross-chaining required to get what you need in (3) and the number of options available in the range you like.

5) Figure out what drive-train choices maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. (e.g. minimize front shifting, minimize cross-chaining, minimize ratio jumps in "sweet-spot" range, etc etc.)

6) Purchase crank-cassette combo identified in (5).
The day I need to work on a spreadsheet to ride my bike is the day I hang it up. Scheesh.

Tim

[zap]

Need a new forum rule:

You can-not respond to a question about gearing without indicating your normal cruising speed and your cadence. Without that information, gearing recommendations, likes and dislikes are relativly meaningless.

IMO

Len

It would still be meaningless.

Everyone can cruise the flats at 25mph at whatever cadence they want. Add any sort of incline......that's when you start seeing some difference in abilities.

Besides, this is the internet................I mean, who really believes Rugby has a 50 on his tri bike. April 1st is getting close.

It's 66 degrees..........and sunny............I'm off for my ride.

:banana:

[Ken Robb]

It would still be meaningless.

Everyone can cruise the flats at 25mph at whatever cadence they want.



:banana:

Ah, the arrogance of youth. :)

[Len J]

It would still be meaningless.

Everyone can cruise the flats at 25mph at whatever cadence they want. Add any sort of incline......that's when you start seeing some difference in abilities.

Besides, this is the internet................I mean, who really believes Rugby has a 50 on his tri bike. April 1st is getting close.

It's 66 degrees..........and sunny............I'm off for my ride.

:banana:

ROFLMAO.

Exagerrating aside.....some context for the opinion would be nice to have.

Len

[T.J.]

Calculator I saw online says 53x11 at 120 rpm is 45mph....you the man

Unfortunately, I can't spin at 120 rpms very comfortably. And yes, some of these group rides are absolutely brutal. If you are running a compact there is no way your keeping up in the final 7 miles. :bike:[/QUOTE]

Do you ride with pro's? Serious question btw. I am a cat 2 and have never come close to spinning out a 53 x11

[Louis]

The day I need to work on a spreadsheet to ride my bike is the day I hang it up. Scheesh.

You don't need one to ride it, but it helps if you want to optimize it. :)

[OtayBW]

You don't need one to ride it, but it helps if you want to optimize it. :)
Ha ha! Very sorry - I have to go with McTeague on this....:)
Seriously, though - visceral response and modification as needed works best for me.

[Louis]

Ha ha! Very sorry - I have to go with McTeague on this....:)
Seriously, though - visceral response and modification as needed works best for me.

As I said, it's my Engineering approach. YMMV (Your Method May Vary)

I've found that some things work out better when I understand the trends behind them, and when you can use numbers to describe things IMO it makes sense to do that, so you can quantify that part of the picture.

[shotojs78]

No regret.. cause i have 50-38.. perfect combo i think.. 34 is really for mountain..

sent from my galaxy SIII

[saab2000]

Unfortunately, I can't spin at 120 rpms very comfortably. And yes, some of these group rides are absolutely brutal. If you are running a compact there is no way your keeping up in the final 7 miles. :bike:

Do you ride with pro's? Serious question btw. I am a cat 2 and have never come close to spinning out a 53 x11[/QUOTE]

This. I can remember one or two times when I ran out of leg speed before I ran out of power and strength, if that makes sense. One time in a cat 1/2 District Championship race was caught behind a stupid crash on the uphill section/feed zone. Topped the leading group of 7 or 8 by about 200 feet. Chased for 3 or 4 miles in the 53x12 and watched them get smaller by the second. That is a rare, rare event. I could have used an 11 that day and only one or two other times I can remember. They didn't really exist much in 1990 though.

Today I own a few 11-tooth cogs and they're nothing more than spacers at the end of the cassette, effectively turning it into a 9-speed cassette.

I just acquired a 13-26 and am looking forward to it. I will actually use the 13, but even today on fast group rides using the 12 (and needing it - that's a whole 'nuther story....) is rare. I can think of one section on my standard group ride where it's useful and even there I can live without it.

The people who get dropped are not getting dropped because of the tiny cogs. They're getting dropped when the fast guys can turn the 15 and they can only turn a 17. The rides are 'won' or 'lost' in the middle of the cassette, not at the ends of it.

[oldpotatoe]

The day I need to work on a spreadsheet to ride my bike is the day I hang it up. Scheesh.

Tim

10-4 on that..yikes

[Gummee]

Do you ride with pro's? Serious question btw. I am a cat 2 and have never come close to spinning out a 53 x11

Before I started racing track and *really* learned what 'spinning out a gear' meant, I thought I did.

Now I rarely get down past the 13-14 cogs unless I'm going downhill. ...and even then I'm just spinning out my legs from the climb

M

[Chance]

Need a new forum rule:

You can-not respond to a question about gearing without indicating your normal cruising speed and your cadence. Without that information, gearing recommendations, likes and dislikes are relativly meaningless.

IMO

Len

Lous is right .... it's a math problem...




Problem solved. We don't need more rules, just more mathematicians.:rolleyes:

[christian]

The day I need to work on a spreadsheet to ride my bike is the day I hang it up. Scheesh.
It's not that you need one, but it's that if you know enough about the terrain you ride in, your preferred cruising speeds and cadences, and your strength, you can figure out what will work without having to swap parts.

For instance: I'm a weak rider in a rolling hills area (80ft/mile ascent average), and I strongly prefer tight spacing (no more than 6%) between 70-80 gear inches, because I spend quite a bit of time there (about 20 mph at 100 rpm).

So, if I look at the gear charts, 52/36 with a 13-26 gets me 72, 76, 80, 85 gear inches. Happy days!

But 52/36 with a 12-25 doesn't have an 18t cog, so I get 72, 80, 85, 91 gear inches. F*cking misery, that.

And that's not even taking into account where the crossover gears are.

The point is, with a gear chart, I can do this at work and I don't have to invest in chainrings. It isn't that you need a spreadsheet, it's that once you know what you like, the spreadsheet can be cheap experimentation.

[Chance]

.......
This. I can remember one or two times when I ran out of leg speed before I ran out of power and strength, if that makes sense.
.............

Leg speed, strength, and power are interrelated. Have a hard time following this gearing issue in the manner you propose. Actually, the manner many propose. And it seems to be a common perspective shared by many here, not just you. Not saying it’s wrong, just that in my opinion it doesn’t take all variables into account.

A rider doesn’t have to spin out, or even come close to spin out, before his cadence is too high to prevent him from developing power under optimum conditions. So while a rider may be able to spin at 150 RPM, he may be able to develop power more efficiently at 100 RPM. And if that were the case, he’d need gearing tall enough to ride at full power at 100 RPM, not at 150 RPM.

Simply assuming, as is so common on this forum (not saying by you), that riders don’t need taller gearing because they’d have to go 45 or 50 MPH to spin out (which they can’t) is lacking in my opinion. Hell, even most professionals on the tour juiced up on EPO can’t “spin out” a 53/11 gear. Yet they ride them. And probably because they benefit from them at times.

[saab2000]

Leg speed, strength, and power are interrelated. Have a hard time following this gearing issue in the manner you propose. Actually, the manner many propose. And it seems to be a common perspective shared by many here, not just you. Not saying it’s wrong, just that in my opinion it doesn’t take all variables into account.

A rider doesn’t have to spin out, or even come close to spin out, before his cadence is too high to prevent him from developing power under optimum conditions. So while a rider may be able to spin at 150 RPM, he may be able to develop power more efficiently at 100 RPM. And if that were the case, he’d need gearing tall enough to ride at full power at 100 RPM, not at 150 RPM.

Simply assuming, as is so common on this forum (not saying by you), that riders don’t need taller gearing because they’d have to go 45 or 50 MPH to spin out (which they can’t) is lacking in my opinion. Hell, even most professionals on the tour juiced up on EPO can’t “spin out” a 53/11 gear. Yet they ride them. And probably because they benefit from them at times.

Good stuff. I was just relating one of the few times in my memory when a really big gear (an 11) would have have actually been useful. The point being that the average rider doesn't need or benefit from enormous gear ratios very often. There are, of course, exceptions.

I have a bunch of cassettes with 11-tooth small cogs. The only reason I keep them around is that they might be useful if I go compact for a travel bike. But so far the 11 is more of a spacer than anything else, for me at least.

I am likely to find my new 13-26 far more useful than the 11-25s I own, especially since I still use 'standard' 53/39 cranks. As mentioned, I am very curious to read what folks think of the mid-compact 52/36 that are starting to show up.

[christian]

53x12 at 120 rpm gets me 41.4 mph. When I try to do that, I think things like, "What are those spots up there in my vision?" not, "I wish I had another gear." :)

[christian]

As mentioned, I am very curious to read what folks think of the mid-compact 52/36 that are starting to show up.Just looking at gearing charts, it looks cool with a 13-26, because you have an 18. 52/36 and 12-25 looks terrible (to me). For racing, I'm going to stick with 53/39.

[zap]

ROFLMAO.

Exagerrating aside.....some context for the opinion would be nice to have.

Len

The mph I posted does not matter. Pick a cruising mph number.

I try to be concise.

There are so many variables that one would probably have to write a book on reporting procedures in order to have any hope of having meaningful data.

Hills.......they do a pretty good job of reducing the size of a group of cyclists. Power to weight ratio is a much bigger deal on inclines.

[FlashUNC]

Just looking at gearing charts, it looks cool with a 13-26, because you have an 18. 52/36 and 12-25 looks terrible (to me). For racing, I'm going to stick with 53/39.

The 13-26 is easily my favorite cassette. Either with a compact or a standard crank.

[zap]

That said, the new mid-compacts (52/36) with 11-speed cassettes will give even more possibilities and keep the ratio jumps in the middle of the cassette more manageable.

SAAB buddy-the 11 speed cassette i selected.......12-27.

Never had a 27 on my single......not even for the race up Wintergreen Resorts. Not that it means much.....

The cool thing is that this cassette has 15, 16, 17, 19 sweet spot-for me even with a 52.

Who said more gears aft is not better.

Anyhow, my build is progressing slooooooowly so no report for at least 2 more weeks.

[saab2000]

SAAB buddy-the 11 speed cassette i selected.......12-27.

Never had a 27 on my single......not even for the race up Wintergreen Resorts. Not that it means much.....

The cool thing is that this cassette has 15, 16, 17, 19 sweet spot-for me even with a 52.

Who said more gears aft is not better.

Anyhow, my build is progressing slooooooowly so no report for at least 2 more weeks.

Sounds perfect. I had never used a cog as large as the 29 I put on in Quinson. But boy am I glad I did! I used the 13-29 to great effect and having that bailout gear was really nice, especially at the top of the climb above Sisteron. You guys were monsters that day!

I agree that more is better in back. I ride my old 8-speed stuff sometimes and I do miss the extra gears. Could I live without them? Sure. Is more nicer? Absolutely!

[Chance]

53x12 at 120 rpm gets me 41.4 mph. When I try to do that, I think things like, "What are those spots up there in my vision?" not, "I wish I had another gear." :)

Gets back to personal choices and personal needs.;)

A 50X13 top gear many claim to ride is only 27 MPH at 90 RPM. With a little tail wind or slight downhill many a paceline can exceed that for long periods. Some pacelines without any aid at all.

Personally don't need anything higher if riding by myself, but if in a fast group or race that's far from aerobically efficient for me.

[bingomck]

I use a compact (50-34) with an 11-25 out back (Campy 11). This 52-36 with a 12-27/29 in the rear is intriguing...

[Chance]

It's a tough comparison because you'd be giving up about 5 inch-gear at the top (120 versus 115) to lower climbing gears by up to 3 inch-gear (36 versus 33). Personally would find this kind of dissimilar comparisons too vague unless my goal was to change the overall gearing in the first place.

[Ralph]

To me.....and where I ride mostly, and my strength level.....if I were changing away from my 10's triple on one bike (30-42-52 X 13-29) for hills, and my standard 10's crank on another bike (39-52 X 13-26) for less hilly riding, I would look closely at the rings on the Campy cross cranks of 36-46, if one can use road cups, then pair that with a cassette or several cassettes starting with 11 and 12.

[bluesea]

Actually the Shimano 12-23 x 34-50 looks pretty sweet for a future CAAD 10, for TT's and hill training.

[flickwet]

Then you use a 53-39 like all the cat 1,2,3's use. other wise a compact is great. built a Campy MTB victory crank as a 50-34 to use on my Colorado. but if you are like me you sometimes ride a different bike with a 30,39,53 triple, most of the time you're the 53, gettin a little lumpy ya drop into the 39, life is good, one or two big hills and that 30 can be welcome relief. Horses for courses there is no right or wrong.

[Ken Robb]

To me.....and where I ride mostly, and my strength level.....if I were changing away from my 10's triple on one bike (30-42-52 X 13-29) for hills, and my standard 10's crank on another bike (39-52 X 13-26) for less hilly riding, I would look closely at the rings on the Campy cross cranks of 36-46, if one can use road cups, then pair that with a cassette or several cassettes starting with 11 and 12.

I have to ask: How many hills are there in central Florida? :)

[Louis]

I have to ask: How many hills are there in central Florida? :)

Ken, you've seen those highway overpasses - absolute killers. :eek:

[Ralph]

I have to ask: How many hills are there in central Florida? :)

Quite a few on the W side of the area. Hills pretty much straight up for a 1/4 mile or so, then straight down. Orange grove owners not willing to give up any space to curve a road around a steep hill.

Where I live on NE side of Orlando.....none very steep. My 39-52 and 13-26 more than adequate. My triple bike is for W side of area, about 30 miles from here, and for when I travel to NC mountains, Columbia, SC, etc. Also.....I like riding in the 42 of the triple, even when triple not needed. To me, for just riding, the triple with 42 in middle, is about pefect for most riding. Cruising along in 42X17, 42X16, 42X15, even 42X14, I can keep up just fine with the "posse" of old guys I ride with. Riding is great around here.

I could live with a compact if the large ring was small enough to allow 15-20 MPH speeds with chain in middle of cassette on big ring. For me, that would probably be a 34-46 or 34-48. 34-50 OK if cassette started with 13 (13X26 good). For my riding, small ring w/b just for hills.

[jpw]

Compact 34 50 here.

The 34 never gets used.

[Chance]

Looks good if/when it filters down to Ultegra. Starting out with 50-34 and an extra 38T inner ring for everyday use. When required for climbing can reinstall the 34T and or switch cassettes from 11-23 to 11-28 as needed. Or 11-30 if they offer it in Ultegra. Endless combinations with one crankset.

With 53-39 rings:

http://dev2.infocaster.net/media/2907/Products-base-crankset-fc-9000-53-39.jpg

with 50-34 rings:

http://dev2.infocaster.net/media/2899/Products-base-crankset-fc-9000-53-34.jpg


• Same bolt circle diameter for compact and traditional double chainsets means that one crankarm fits all chainring sizes
• 50-34T/52-36T/52-38T/53-39T/54-42T/55-42T

[bluesea]

Looks good if/when it filters down to Ultegra.


Yes.

[Ken Robb]

Quite a few on the W side of the area. Hills pretty much straight up for a 1/4 mile or so, then straight down. Orange grove owners not willing to give up any space to curve a road around a steep hill.

Where I live on NE side of Orlando.....none very steep. My 39-52 and 13-26 more than adequate. My triple bike is for W side of area, about 30 miles from here, and for when I travel to NC mountains, Columbia, SC, etc. Also.....I like riding in the 42 of the triple, even when triple not needed. To me, for just riding, the triple with 42 in middle, is about pefect for most riding. Cruising along in 42X17, 42X16, 42X15, even 42X14, I can keep up just fine with the "posse" of old guys I ride with. Riding is great around here.

I could live with a compact if the large ring was small enough to allow 15-20 MPH speeds with chain in middle of cassette on big ring. For me, that would probably be a 34-46 or 34-48. 34-50 OK if cassette started with 13 (13X26 good). For my riding, small ring w/b just for hills.

You would love a couple of my bikes. One has 52-42-30 with 12-27 9spd and the other is 50-35 with 13-26 Campy 9 speed.

[DougH9]

Unfortunately, I can't spin at 120 rpms very comfortably. And yes, some of these group rides are absolutely brutal. If you are running a compact there is no way your keeping up in the final 7 miles. :bike:

Do you ride with pro's? Serious question btw. I am a cat 2 and have never come close to spinning out a 53 x11[/QUOTE]





Whenever I stand, either climbing or sprinting, I always grab one or two gears because my standing cadence is a lot slower than seated.

Here is where the big gears (53x12, etc.) can be useful in a fast group ride:

I am hanging off the back and the pack is going 30(ish) mph, and I have allowed too much space to form and I suddenly realize I need to make it up quick or I will get dropped. I do not have the power to stay seated and power through this, so I grab one or two gears (this may put me in the 53x12), and stand up and sprint back up to the pack.

BTW-I like the 53x39 and either a 13/30 (8spd), and 12/27 or 12/30 (10spd) for use in the mountains.

[thwart]

http://dev2.infocaster.net/media/2907/Products-base-crankset-fc-9000-53-39.jpg

OK... I'm a Campy guy... but that is a fugly crank.

IMO.

[oldpotatoe]

http://dev2.infocaster.net/media/2907/Products-base-crankset-fc-9000-53-39.jpg

OK... I'm a Campy guy... but that is a fugly crank.

IMO.

VERY stiff rings, like 7900 and 6700. Essentially made for Di2. BUT bad news is the big rings for both are pretty expensive.

7900 are in the $220 range, 6700 about $140, for just the big ring..9000 not listed yet but will be about what 7900 are I suspect.

[Hls2k6]

I'll be the voice of dissension & say I hated my brief stint with a compact. I basically stopped using the small ring for anything but huge climbs.

[oldpotatoe]

I'll be the voice of dissension & say I hated my brief stint with a compact. I basically stopped using the small ring for anything but huge climbs.

Well, mee too. I have a 50/39, have for over 10 years. I think even here in CO, a 34 is too small. I think a 38 would be ideal but have C-Record cranks(135mm BCD), but what I have works well for where I ride coupled with my freewheel(13-26).

[Chance]

7900 are in the $220 range, 6700 about $140, for just the big ring..9000 not listed yet but will be about what 7900 are I suspect.

If in the $140 range for Ultegra that's not that bad for the big ring. The small should be much cheaper since it's just a "standard" ring. The outer is reportedly hollow which probably adds a lot of cost. Can you confirm if that's the case?