Anyone else here not bonding with compact cranks?

[Duende]

At the risk of sounding precious, I have to say I'm officially not liking my 50/34 compact crank setup.

I've been riding my old heavier bike with a 52/42 (prepping for the Eroica) which has a joy. The compact setup, even after experimenting with numerous freewheel configs, is just ain't working for me. I'm never in the rite spot at the right time. Always floating around the rear cogs trying to find the right gear.

Anyone else here feel the same way? I'm getting older too, almost 50. Not a masher by any means these days, but definitely not a spinner either. Northern California hills all seem to be doable still so I'm not worried about that so much.

Thinking about maybe going for the Campy 2015 cranks so that I'd have options later if need be. But if I did that, would I need a complete new drivetrain? Derailuers and all?

[R3awak3n]

you wouldnt need anything new but a new chain if you decide to go back to standard. Going for the 2015 crank is smart. People hate on the cranks looks, which I dont mind, but at the end of the day its a much better crank. I love my White Industries and Hollowgram where I can change btw compact and standard.

I am in the process of switching out my compact to a standard. I am not a strong rider by any means but had a bike with a standard and one with a compact and enjoyed the compact more. Have a 27 in the back which should be enough. Both my bikes will have standard up front and 27 max in the back.

Will still have a bike with a compact (even lower its a 50-32T) and that bike has a mtn derailleur and has racks, etc.

[Ti Designs]

I run a 44/56, but anyone will tell you I couldn't get up a hill to save my life...

[Duende]

Haha... You guys rock!

So if I went for the 2015 crank, all I would need is a new chain? Wow! That's great!

[djg21]

At the risk of sounding precious, I have to say I'm officially not liking my 50/34 compact crank setup.

I've been riding my old heavier bike with a 52/42 (prepping for the Eroica) which has a joy. The compact setup, even after experimenting with numerous freewheel configs, is just ain't working for me. I'm never in the rite spot at the right time. Always floating around the rear cogs trying to find the right gear.

Anyone else here feel the same way? I'm getting older too, almost 50. Not a masher by any means these days, but definitely not a spinner either. Northern California hills all seem to be doable still so I'm not worried about that so much.

Thinking about maybe going for the Campy 2015 cranks so that I'd have options later if need be. But if I did that, would I need a complete new drivetrain? Derailuers and all?


I just swapped my compact rings on a DA7950 crank for mid-compact (52/36). I have all the gear I need with an 11-25 or 11-27 cassette. I use Praxis rings which work very well.

[firerescuefin]

I just swapped my compact rings on a DA7950 crank for mid-compact (52/36). I have all the gear I need with an 11-25 or 11-27 cassette. I use a Praxis rings which work very well.

Was going to say the same thing. Seems like the OP is a perfect candidate for a mid compact....and the Praxis rings work great.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1725855&postcount=1

Have a 52-36 paired with an 11-28

[arthurlo]

Mostly the same experience with me. I thought I would try going with the compact for some lower gears, but with the 34T small chainring, I've been finding that I'm crossing the chain a little more than I tend to prefer.

A little picky, but with the 39T, I could keep my preferred cadence and keep the chain on the larger cogs in the back. Now, with the 34T, I find I need to keep the chain the smaller cogs and sometimes need to trim the front derailleur, or jump up to the 50T and use one of the larger cogs.

Petty, I know. The situation is a little better with the 36T of the semi-compact. For now, I think the better solution would have been to just get a cogset with easier gears.

[eddief]

But I need low low gears. Compact with big cassette operated just fine, but I was constantly shifting the front rings back and forth. My low gear needs have me running triples...and always will. Of course ride mostly in the two bigs, but when needed to bail out, the granny is always there.

[campy man]

Mid Compact +1

[FlashUNC]

For long climbs, they are a must for my fat butt.

But the ol' 53x39 does have a nice feel to it. If only I had better legs pushing less mass uphill...

I keep one of each around. On the days you have good legs, the 39 does feel like flying a bit. And way less cross chaining.

[ultraman6970]

Big chance the OP cant handle small cogs, some people cant do it too well, other guys can do too good with odd cogs, I'm one of those... dont like anything odd under 15... 42 was a great chainring, took me a while to get used to the 39 also...

Op, move to 36... that can help a little bit more.

[RFC]

I love compacts! You need to change your mindset. If you are doing it right, you are essentially riding two gearing systems. I set up mine so I can run the entire big ring. If the hills get tough, I switch to the small ring as a separate system. Don't try to run back and forth between front rings. That's strictly six speed old school and I gave that up a long time ago, even on my steel classics.

BTW, if you are actually riding something like a six, use a very tight rear cluster and treat as described above. I've done it and it works great!

[Duende]

I'm pretty settled on my old 80's bike with a 52/42 and a 13-28. That seems to get me everywhere pretty nicely. I actually just threw my 53 chain ring on for old times sake, but that might be a bit much. We shall see.

If I have a 53/39 up front and a 12-27 or a 12-29 in the rear that pretty much gets me almost as wide a gearing range as my 50/34 11-25. But with less of a jump up front than mid or full compact.

I'm thinking that's killing two birds with one stone. As my front shifting could use a bit of improvement too.

[KidWok]

I wasn't a huge fan of compact gearing until I set up my all arounder with a 11-32 on the back. Now I have the gearing to stay in the 50t most of the time and also have the low gears when needed. Have now also set up a road bike with 50/34 x 11-32.

Tai

[Pushgears]

It seems like the gears are spaced too closely when in the 34T so I find myself doing lots of double shifts especially when picking up the pace. I also seem to run out of gears in the 34T which requires frequent crossing over to the big ring. My newest bike has 39/53 coupled with 12/27 which for most of the terrain I ride seems about right.

A pragmatic approach would be to determine what gear # you need to spin the pedals at 90-95 rpm for the average terrain you ride and configure your set-up so the corresponding sprocket is in the middle of the cassette.

[oldpotatoe]

At the risk of sounding precious, I have to say I'm officially not liking my 50/34 compact crank setup.

I've been riding my old heavier bike with a 52/42 (prepping for the Eroica) which has a joy. The compact setup, even after experimenting with numerous freewheel configs, is just ain't working for me. I'm never in the rite spot at the right time. Always floating around the rear cogs trying to find the right gear.

Anyone else here feel the same way? I'm getting older too, almost 50. Not a masher by any means these days, but definitely not a spinner either. Northern California hills all seem to be doable still so I'm not worried about that so much.

Thinking about maybe going for the Campy 2015 cranks so that I'd have options later if need be. But if I did that, would I need a complete new drivetrain? Derailuers and all?

Tried a com[act on my Moots, rode it where I ride once or twice, went back to 50/39. I think the 'ideal' may be 52(50?)/36 or maybe 38..YMMV tho, depends on where/how you ride. a 52/11 is a very tall gear, 12-something, 11s, with a 27/29 or so works well. You'll be using the 16t or 18t lots more than a 11t.

2015 Campagnolo crank plug and play. No derailleurs needed.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I rode compact cranks once, maybe 10-12 years ago. Hated it. Imo, you're much better off getting a standard crank / chainring combo with a wide range cassette.

Big rings and big cogs are far more efficient. Less friction, less twist in the chain and less wear on the components.

Cheers,
KP

[Ralph]

So many variables.....where you ride....how strong you are, etc. But to me, if using a compact, you just ride in big ring mostly. As above noted....save the small ring for a separate drive train. I went for a ride recently with some old pro's, and they mostly just rode the big ring....cross chaining and all.

I've got to point, where if I'm coming up a hill with a bunch of other riders, and need a little lower gear, and the front shift is just way too much, I just keep down shifting on rear cog....even to big to big.....while I cringe inside, the bike always survives. I don't ever have to trim FD.

[JMacII]

I ride a compact. When I need to shift from big ring to small I just shift up two in the back. Never miss a beat. I prefer to spin a pretty high cadence. If I had a 52 or 53 up front I don't think id use the 12/13/14 very much out back. Works well for me.

[ceolwulf]

The fundamental issue here is that without a big old dinner plate hanging off your bottom bracket it is impossible to Look Pro.

[Pastashop]

You're all doing it wrong... Half-step plus granny is where it's at!

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2310/1806192613_d913db1b01_z.jpg

[wallymann]

I wasn't a huge fan of compact gearing until I set up my all arounder with a 11-32 on the back. Now I have the gearing to stay in the 50t most of the time and also have the low gears when needed. Have now also set up a road bike with 50/34 x 11-32.

Tai

this. unless i'm doing some serious hill climbing (which means a roadtrip out-of-state) or taking in some local gravel, compact gearing is just too wonky for me.

for any sort of real fast riding, in particular if doing fast group-rides, i need a 53/39 and i'm by no means a strong-boy.

[Mayhem]

My Focus came with a compact. I despised it and bought a trusty 52/39. IMO the majority of road bikes should come with a triple.

[paredown]

I love compacts! You need to change your mindset. If you are doing it right, you are essentially riding two gearing systems. I set up mine so I can run the entire big ring. If the hills get tough, I switch to the small ring as a separate system. Don't try to run back and forth between front rings. That's strictly six speed old school and I gave that up a long time ago, even on my steel classics...

I like this idea--I spent a lot of years on old systems, and thought that I would hate a compact, but this gives me hope.

[Duende]

Tried a com[act on my Moots, rode it where I ride once or twice, went back to 50/39. I think the 'ideal' may be 52(50?)/36 or maybe 38..YMMV tho, depends on where/how you ride. a 52/11 is a very tall gear, 12-something, 11s, with a 27/29 or so works well. You'll be using the 16t or 18t lots more than a 11t.

2015 Campagnolo crank plug and play. No derailleurs needed.

Always good to hear confirmation from the Campy Grandmaster! Thanks big time.

So then the 2015 derailuers require the 2015 shifters. But otherwise I'm good.

[8aaron8]

I ran a standard 53/39 for a long while but realized I rarely used the big ring because I just didn't have the power, definitely a spinner. I switched out the big ring with a 50t which has been great. On one of my other bikes I opted just to get the compact 50/34 set-up and haven't gotten used to the large jump between the two rings. All in all I prefer the 50/39 set-up.

[FlashUNC]

I like this idea--I spent a lot of years on old systems, and thought that I would hate a compact, but this gives me hope.

The downside to this approach is you spend quite a bit more time cross chained. This is less of an issue now that I live in hillier areas, but I found in flatter terrain like Charlotte I was constantly cross chained, especially on smaller rolling hills. Either I'd stick in the big ring and be close to big/big, or drop into the small ring and ride near small/small.

Just my experience, but all that disappears somewhat with a 53x39.

[mtechnica]

Compact is just bad IMHO, but 50/39 isn't bad for a road bike with fatter than normal tires, or a cross bike. I agree that I would rather have a triple than a compact, though I would never use the smallest ring on a road bike. Maybe a touring bike.

[Dead Man]

This topic is so incredibly subjective, it doesn't even make sense to have it. At least not if nobody is going to qualify their opinion..

I rode standard cranks when I primarily stuck to the lowlands. 39:25 was plenty to get me up low rolling hill country or the occasional big climb. Biggest climb I've yet to do was in 39:25, 3,700' or so (Larch Mountain east of Portland) for a total of like 7,000' for the day. Now that I stay almost exclusively in the hills, I'm on 50/34 and 11-28, because there's a massive difference between doing a climb, even if it's a big climb, and doing nothing but climbing, and steep climbing, even if they're relative short climbs. Can you do a 1,100' 10% climb with steps to 25% on a 39:25? Yea, if you don't like your knees.... but how about 4 times in a row? 3 days a week?

Here's life in The B Country:

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/9f4a5601-e154-4439-a606-9d317d782faf_zpsuefashoh.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/dc4b2962-7c7e-456a-a5ef-df584254f0c6_zpsleaslloz.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/4bf26c5b-6417-4f43-a2fc-2d9b4e8cf074_zpsd0ovyp33.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/d7d14554-fdf2-41e4-8771-7eafb37a0c0f_zpsedeoqesu.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/36b9f71c-ce7e-4183-b0b0-111acb995a9e_zpsoq1leqdo.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/fe3d1d15-df27-478a-aa78-fe0043aa6cdc_zpsj03njlag.png

Couple easier days...
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/f026b62e-4a4b-49f5-b0da-65706f21a5fc_zpsk4cdpi3j.pnghttp://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab6/bkb0000/024d0b83-008a-4cff-8dad-95606c93dff5_zpsayxmstiz.png

No.... I am totally NOT having any trouble bonding with compacts. I can't even fathom going back to standards, out here.

[Spdntrxi]

I like compact.. Live in the 50... No weirdness cross chaining so I can use the 59/28 with no issues. Only switch to little 34 is it get above 5/6% for a length of time

[Uncle Jam's Army]

Horses for courses. A few years ago, I decided I wasn't going to do much climbing anymore, due to a bad back. I've concentrated almost all my riding on flat and rolling terrain, with the occasional hill here and there (nothing over 1.25 miles). So, for that, a standard crank is just fine. A 52/36 is nice, too, but when the speed gets north of 20 mph, the small ring is useless, as you wind up cross-chained small/small. You can wrap up a 39 much better. I do like the 36 on the small hills, though.

I have done Levi's Gran Fondo twice. First time my low gear was 39-27. That hurt, bad. Second time was 34-25, better, but still not low enough. If I ever did it again, most definitely a 34-28. Always better for me to take some pressure off the legs and put it on the cardio.

[cderalow]

being relatively new (and not strong at all when it comes to hills)

compact suits me fine.

in the 50 for flats, drop down to the 34 for hills...

[thwart]

This is a surprising discussion for early Spring. I guess many of you folks must have done a ton of winter training. Or maybe there was a group buy on GH or EPO that I missed...

It's reasonably hilly here, lots of double digit grades. All my bikes now have compacts, and I have to say that at his point I love 'em. Campy makes it easy with just one simultaneous stroke of both hands for up- or down-shifts up front, so you don't have to lose any momentum. With a little practice, anyway. Yeah, front shifting is undoubtedly a bit smoother with a 53/39, but it's no big difference, at least for me.

And along the lines of old, weak, early-in-the-season legs, I'd like to sing the praises of 13-29 cassettes... ;)

[Dead Man]

I have done Levi's Gran Fondo twice. First time my low gear was 39-27. That hurt, bad. Second time was 34-25, better, but still not low enough. If I ever did it again, most definitely a 34-28. Always better for me to take some pressure off the legs and put it on the cardio.

I am still on 10-speed, so I don't know how 11s are geared - but I really love the 6700 11-28.... bottom two gears are 24t and 28t - basically the 28 is a mini-granny. I can get up 98% of the stuff I climb in 34:24, and it's usually a great cadence for me in the teens, but if I'm burning through climb 4 with wasted legs and staring at a short 20+% step, you can bet I'm glad that 28 is there.

[Dead Man]

This is a surprising discussion for early Spring. I guess many of you folks must have done a ton of winter training. Or maybe there was a group buy on GH or EPO that I missed...

West coast skipped winter this year - no excuses, over here.

[mtechnica]

West coast skipped winter this year - no excuses, over here.

This is true

[Likes2ridefar]

I didnt like a compact when i first used one with an 11-28, but now by choice do so. Being a weight weenie(not really), it's a win win with a smaller cassette and rings.


I finally settled on an 11-23 cassette. Perfect for all my riding in hilly western CT.

[Mayhem]

This topic is so incredibly subjective, it doesn't even make sense to have it. At least not if nobody is going to qualify their opinion..

I rode standard cranks when I primarily stuck to the lowlands. 39:25 was plenty to get me up low rolling hill country or the occasional big climb. Biggest climb I've yet to do was in 39:25, 3,700' or so (Larch Mountain east of Portland) for a total of like 7,000' for the day. Now that I stay almost exclusively in the hills, I'm on 50/34 and 11-28, because there's a massive difference between doing a climb, even if it's a big climb, and doing nothing but climbing, and steep climbing, even if they're relative short climbs. Can you do a 1,100' 10% climb with steps to 25% on a 39:25? Yea, if you don't like your knees.... but how about 4 times in a row? 3 days a week?


I think most people would agree that a compact would be better for climbing than a standard crank unless you're Nibali. Not sure that's being debated. But a triple is better for multiple reasons. You have even better climbing gears, a 52 for descents or whatever and a much wider range of gears. The idea of putting compact cranks on road bikes was stupid when triples already existed. And I hate the wide spaced cassettes that seem to come with all of them. But that's just my opinion.

[classtimesailer]

I think what is messing you up is the jump from 50 to 34. I got my first compact this year but have a 48-34 on it and switching from my normal road bikes to the compact is seamless. I've got a 12-27 running with the compact but I don't think that matters. If that cassette ever wears out, I'll get a 14-28 since it is not my go fast bike.

[unterhausen]

I used to ride a 44/54 front on my classic bike. That 44 was great most of the time. I am moving to a 46/34 crank. I almost never have a reason to ride in my 50-11 ratio, so I think I want to try to recreate that old 44 magic that I used to have. The 34 ring really is only good for climbing, in my experience.

[JMacII]

This thread is like the opposite of all the discussion about 6-8 years ago when compacts became popular. Everyone then talked about having the versatility of a triple with better shifting and less weight.

[Dead Man]

This thread is like the opposite of all the discussion about 6-8 years ago when compacts became popular. Everyone then talked about having the versatility of a triple with better shifting and less weight.

And that's still the case. I guess the problem is that people bought into the idea that compacts are "better." They're not; they're "better if......"

Can't leave that "if" out of it.

[phutterman]

I'm a big fan of the 50/36 compromise (but wish it was a stock option). I get the 14t jump of a traditional and don't have the extreme low end that I don't need of the 34, but still have overall lower gears for my spinning style.

I liked how much time I could spend in the 38 or 39 of a traditional, but am not sure I need or want such a big big ring, and like the 36 for spinny climbing (with 11-28). Plus with an 11-25 it's awfully close to what I had with a traditional and a 28t in back when I don't need the low end.

I haven't used a 52/36, and would probably like it ok, but it would bring back the bigger jump of the compact, and I just don't think I'd actually get much good out of the extra two teeth (except even worse cross chaining in the big ring).

[rnhood]

There is nothing wrong with the compact set-up. In mountainous area riding, it makes good sense. Maybe not so much in rolling or flat terrain. But it shifts and performs perfectly - or at least this is true with Shimano - on my bike. The only issue I've had with a compact set-up - and I've been one for the past 4 years - is that I run out of gear about 32 mph. This is an issue when going downhill and leading (pulling) the group. So I typically roll off the front on the protracted downhill sections. Riding in the middle of the group is not a problem since it only takes spinning the crank fast in spurts for a few seconds at a time to keep with the group.

The larger jumps between speeds within the cogset don't bother me. They are there mind you, and I notice them, but they have never been detriment to my riding style. But I know some people will feel different about this. We all have our priorities and preferences.

[Dead Man]

There is nothing wrong with the compact set-up. In mountainous area riding, it makes good sense. Maybe not so much in rolling or flat terrain. But it shifts and performs perfectly - or at least this is true with Shimano - on my bike. The only issue I've had with a compact set-up - and I've been one for the past 4 years - is that I run out of gear about 32 mph. This is an issue when going downhill and leading (pulling) the group. So I typically roll off the front on the protracted downhill sections. Riding in the middle of the group is not a problem since it only takes spinning the crank fast in spurts for a few seconds at a time to keep with the group.

The larger jumps between speeds within the cogset don't bother me. They are there mind you, and I notice them, but they have never been detriment to my riding style. But I know some people will feel different about this. We all have our priorities and preferences.

With an 11t top gear, 32mph is 89rpm.... that's my normal cadence. You gotta work on your spin! I can pretty comfortably peddle up to about 45mph... faster than that, and I start bouncing around on the saddle... but that's still only like 120-130rpm, a guy really should be able to spin up faster than that on call.

[rnhood]

Well, yes I know that. Unfortunately I've always been kind of a masher. I am working on the spin though. Its better than it used to be, believe me.

But pedaling at 45 mph with a compact.....for me that will never happen. You have to remember I'm on 64 year old legs that have been run hard and hung up wet (as they say).

[personicus]

I just go slower...I can "mash"my compact no problem.

[bikingshearer]

I went from standard double to triple 10 or 12 years ago and I haven't looked back. 53/13 high gear, 30/29 low, and I use both and everything in between. Mr. Triple is my friend, and I have no desire to change that.

Of course, my opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it . . . . :p

[marciero]

Compact is good idea but I think not well-executed for the type of riding that most do. The basic idea is main ring plus climbing gear. But the big ring is just too big for most people to use a main gear on all but flat terrain. So you have the back-and-forth on the front with that huge jump. On the other hand, from the size of the cassettes many riders seem to be using, the small ring is not small enough for most riders who do serious climbing -what's the point of having a "climbing gear" if you still need a 32+ in the back, with its extra weight and larger jumps between shifts?

The other thing is that to make main-ring-plus-climbing gear work, you need a chain line that facilitates reasonably accessing all the cogs in the back from the big ring. Big-big aint cross-chaining if the big ring sets up in the middle of the cassette. But most compact crank/BB setups put the big ring too far outboard for that.

[OtayBW]

I agree with many here about using the compact primarily as main ring plus climbing gear as many indicated here. I live in a very hilly area and I have no problem staying in the big ring most of the time. That's me. It's a very good solution. I don't have a problem with big jumps or shifting between rings excessively. Works for me very well.

That said, I have 2 other bike with standard rings and enjoy riding them as well, but only if there is no insane climbing planned.

[buddybikes]

Concept here is an old term called cross step gearing. Many triples used to have very close top/middle chainrings. Many in our club years ago built doubles. My first bike in 1970 actually had for some weird reason a 51/48. Read the Master...

http://sheldonbrown.com/gear-theory.html

[bigbill]

I tried a compact when I lived in Hawaii. A 36/50 with a 11-23 and I never liked it. The low was too low and going fast meant dumping the cassette. I went back to a standard and bought a Centaur UT, one of the early ones with really nice rings. Now I'm on 11 speed with a standard and a 12-27 cassette.

[OtayBW]

I tried a compact when I lived in Hawaii. A 36/50 with a 11-23 and I never liked it. The low was too low and going fast meant dumping the cassette. I went back to a standard and bought a Centaur UT, one of the early ones with really nice rings. Now I'm on 11 speed with a standard and a 12-27 cassette.
The gear inches at 12/27 with a standard (53/39) crank is lower than that GI with the compact with the 11/23, no?

[vav]

48-36 front and 11-32 cassette.

[marciero]

48-36 front and 11-32 cassette.

The 48-36 front is great combo. I have similar, 46-36, on one bike. Though am mostly in the larger ring, it's less of a "main gear" than with the 44-30 main-plus-climbing set-up I have on another bike.

[merckx]

When I was racing as a junior in the seventies, I made a compact using a TA Cyclotourist crankset to comply with the gear restriction. I used 45/33 rings and a 13 X 17 Regina Oro straight block out back. I think that the gear restriction was around 95". It was perfect except that I still couldn't get up the cols in a 33 X 17, but that corncob sure looked the business.

[personicus]

For racing it's actually pretty great-- being able to spin up climbs really keeps the legs fresher. As long as you're comfortable really spinning them while you sprint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[russ46]

I switched my bike to a compact after starting to ride again 6+ years ago. At that time it was because of poor condition & needing all the help I could get. I haven't switched back to a 53 because the compact works for me. Where I ride is hilly with lots of fairly steep but short climbs. I shift to the 34 at the start of a climb & back to the 50 at the top after a couple of changes on the rear so I'm not cross chaining. This may be more use of the front derailleur then some want to do but since I switched to the Ultegra 6800, shifting is a breeze.

[denapista]

Gear according to your riding terrain... I live in LA at the base of the Angeles forest. I'll never go back to standard gearing. Once I went down to compact, I haven't stopped smiling. My climbs are typically 50-80 mile loops with non stop climbing with averages between 4-9% for 10-15 miles straight. Being able to recover while easy spinning in my 50/34 has been a blessing. 52/36 mid compact is honestly the sweet spot, as I have (2) bikes with mid and compact gearing. Mid compact gives you just enough "Ummph" to mash on the flats if that's you're thing. I can grind out a 50 just fine. some rides I wish I had the 53/39 gearing, until we get off the flats and hit some hills.