New DA 10 Compact?

[jeffg]

It seems that Shimano will be releasing a 10 speed compact version soon. I heard this from a few folks, and now I just saw the Trek 2005 showing component choices as Shimano DA, 53-39 or 50-36. Hmmm, I wonder if it works with Campy 10 speed ;) . Also, it appears FSA will offer a new carbon compact with the same integrated crank/BB idea as DA 10.

[mavic1010]

Great, I switch to Campy to get the carbon compact and now Shimano introduces their own..... :crap:

[jberk]

is the Shimano a carbon crank?

[Climb01742]

my LBS just got in my DA 10 50t from japan. yippee. apparently its been available in japan for a while. come on, guys, lets learn to share better... :rolleyes:

[Bruce K]

Thanks guys.

This will probably mean an upgrade to the Ottrott rather than a new ride for next year, but we'll see. It would certainly be less $$ than a whole new beast.

Maybe Santa will put the fixie under the menorah for this year. :rolleyes:

You listening honey? :D

BK

[Matt Barkley]

At first I was a real fan of this compact idea...

36/50, 34/50 sounded great to me. Who uses a 53x11 anyway? We aren't Petacchihammerdawgers'.

But here is what I am thinking and finding: Yes, the compact makes a heck of alot more sense than all those clumbsy' triples but....

34 is too small and 50 is too big - because with the compact you HAVE TO be in one of these gears. Here is what I mean: 39/53 is pretty good for most U.S. city and rural areas I know of (I am assuming a 12x23/25 in the back 10spd). 42x52 probably makes more sense - or a 38/39/40X52 than the 39/53 standard. You spend most of your time on the small ring - hopefully not cross chained which is why the 42 is so nice. A greater number and severity of climbs requires a 39 - so be it. 53 is too big I believe - that is why the 52 makes more sense. 11 gearing in my opinion only helps out the 39 by allowing you to be one step higher without cross-chaining as much in the 39.

34 is too small for most climbs under a certain gradient - especially with our 10 speed spread cassettes in the rear offering fine tuning up to a 25 (or even 27!) The difference between 50 and 34 is too great, 36 may be better. AND how can you ride a 34 or 36 on the flats??? You can't/ SO you end up in the 50 cross chaining.

Compacts - I am all for them if you want to take it slow - or are going over mountain passes all day. But if you have to deal with rolling terrain or flats - I really wouldn't be so happy.

Is it true that Campy has a special 1/2 grouppo for their new compactset-up, special cassettes, etc? - Matt

[Dirtdog]

At first I was a real fan of this compact idea...

36/50, 34/50 sounded great to me. Who uses a 53x11 anyway? We aren't Petacchihammerdawgers'.

But here is what I am thinking and finding: Yes, the compact makes a heck of alot more sense than all those clumbsy' triples but....

34 is too small and 50 is too big - because with the compact you HAVE TO be in one of these gears. Here is what I mean: 39/53 is pretty good for most U.S. city and rural areas I know of (I am assuming a 12x23/25 in the back 10spd). 42x52 probably makes more sense - or a 38/39/40X52 than the 39/53 standard. You spend most of your time on the small ring - hopefully not cross chained which is why the 42 is so nice. A greater number and severity of climbs requires a 39 - so be it. 53 is too big I believe - that is why the 52 makes more sense. 11 gearing in my opinion only helps out the 39 by allowing you to be one step higher without cross-chaining as much in the 39.

34 is too small for most climbs under a certain gradient - especially with our 10 speed spread cassettes in the rear offering fine tuning up to a 25 (or even 27!) The difference between 50 and 34 is too great, 36 may be better. AND how can you ride a 34 or 36 on the flats??? You can't/ SO you end up in the 50 cross chaining.

Compacts - I am all for them if you want to take it slow - or are going over mountain passes all day. But if you have to deal with rolling terrain or flats - I really wouldn't be so happy.

Is it true that Campy has a special 1/2 grouppo for their new compactset-up, special cassettes, etc? - Matt


uh...............

[Dirtdog]

Oops sorry to be short in my previous post. I have a FSA 50x34 I need and use the 34 a lot. I actually run it with 12x27 on the back, the 34 x 27 combo works well for me but may not be for all.

To each his own.........

[93legendti]

I have a FSA 50/34 and use a 11-23 cassette with it and it rides great. Feels nearly the same as the combos I get with my 53/39 FSA Superlight crank I use with a 12-25 on one of my other bikes.

[Climb01742]

i agree with matt...sorta. for me, a 50 is great. end of story. but what about the small ring? a 34 is cool for climbing, but i find on the flats or rollers, i'm too often undergeared. a 39 actually works quite well for me with a 23 or 25 in the back (haven't ever touched the 25 but its nice to know its there.) but a 36 or 38 gives me a little more "mental" cushion. i like to spin. i feel less like i'll ever tweak a knee or hip spinning. i've only ever hurt myself cycling when i've tried to be too macho and push too big a gear. physically, a 39 is cool. but mentally i like have just a bit more spinning bandwidth, so i'm experimenting with 36/38s.

[Ray]

I run a 34-48 in front and a 12-34 in back. I don't need the 30 or 34 tooth cogs with the small ring (except in REALLY dire circumstances), but it allows me to go comfortably to a 48x26 and I can stay in the 48 the vast majority of the time with good chainline. For some a high of 48x12 might be too small but I ran a 50x13 for years and 48x12 is bigger. I don't spin it out until I'm up pretty close to 40 mph and by then I'm better off tucking and coasting anyway. The 34 is basically just for tough climbs, which we have a good number of around here.

I ran a 12-27 for a long time and had more than enough low gears, but I couldn't stay in the big ring quite as much and ended up with some cross-chain situations, so I usually stick with the pie-plate in back.

-Ray

[Too Tall]

About 6 months ago I cobbled together a 180mm compact crank setup for my backup bike. What I found is that this is the shizzle for zippy hill training AND laid back riding. Why? Because I don't feel like breaking my legs on off days and SOMETIMES I just want my ideal rpms for climbs and I NEVER want big jumps in gearing. On race day this is a piece of junk! Bottom line, it is a real distraction to be in a different gear than everyone around you....tried it...hated it...DARN glad I have it in my quiver.

I have a working theory that appropriate gearing for a given rider will change dependant on watts/kg ratio. Saying that a 39X53 is the right gearing for most riders might be a square peg in a round hole for alot of folks.

[jeffg]

At first I was a real fan of this compact idea...

36/50, 34/50 sounded great to me. Who uses a 53x11 anyway? We aren't Petacchihammerdawgers'.

But here is what I am thinking and finding: Yes, the compact makes a heck of alot more sense than all those clumbsy' triples but....

34 is too small and 50 is too big - because with the compact you HAVE TO be in one of these gears. Here is what I mean: 39/53 is pretty good for most U.S. city and rural areas I know of (I am assuming a 12x23/25 in the back 10spd). 42x52 probably makes more sense - or a 38/39/40X52 than the 39/53 standard. You spend most of your time on the small ring - hopefully not cross chained which is why the 42 is so nice. A greater number and severity of climbs requires a 39 - so be it. 53 is too big I believe - that is why the 52 makes more sense. 11 gearing in my opinion only helps out the 39 by allowing you to be one step higher without cross-chaining as much in the 39.

34 is too small for most climbs under a certain gradient - especially with our 10 speed spread cassettes in the rear offering fine tuning up to a 25 (or even 27!) The difference between 50 and 34 is too great, 36 may be better. AND how can you ride a 34 or 36 on the flats??? You can't/ SO you end up in the 50 cross chaining.

Compacts - I am all for them if you want to take it slow - or are going over mountain passes all day. But if you have to deal with rolling terrain or flats - I really wouldn't be so happy.

Is it true that Campy has a special 1/2 grouppo for their new compactset-up, special cassettes, etc? - Matt

Matt --

Well, I guess it all depends on your strength terrain, etc. With Shimano at least I am convinced a 48/34 works best for most non-racers. With an 11-23 you get the equivalent of a 53/39, 12-27. Live in a very hilly area or heading to the mountains? Slap on a 12-27 and you have great gearing. I really don't get the comment about the 34. At 90-100 rpm on the flats, you can use the big ring from 32-20 mph (48x12-19) and then use the 34X15-16 at 18 and 16 mph, respectively if you hit a rise, cruise a bit, etc. No cross-chaining, just well spaced gears from 108 to 34 gear inches (an 11-23 is 118 to 40 gear inches). Are most people here faster than this? I doubt it. Yes I have ridden in the Alps and completed several DCs with 20,000 feet of climbing with a standard 53/39, 12-27; however, I am faster and save my legs for the last 10% climbs with a compact.

[Matt Barkley]

Jeff G - Yeah, these are just my thoughts and findings working with myself and other riders with compacts. I do know of certain riders where the 34 is perfect - and anything larger than the 34x25 wouldn't do because of severity of climbs. So - point taken. :beer: I guess my personal preference really goes to even 42x52(or 53) gearing in the front if I am living in areas with flats and 38/9/40x52/3 in areas with serious climbing. TooTall has a great point about taking it easy with a compact. No need to push it!

Rear Cassettes w/combo I prefer or wish they made (10spd):

Flats w/ some rolling: 42x52/3 and 13x23 , 11x23 , 12x21! :)

Varying with Serious Climbing: 38/9x52/3 and 11x23 or 12x25

[Bruce K]

Personally, at my age and stage the 50-34 is perfect. It has allowed me to develop a slightly higher cadence AND a higher average speed.

While I may go for the 50-36, I find I can ride my 50-34 & 12/11 up to around 19mph without spinning out and the 34 makes climbs way more comfortable.

It used to bug me that my cadence didn't match anyone near me but now several other riders in the group are on compacts as well, plus I learned to stop watching. ;)

My TT bike is still 53-39 and I just had to put my Concours back to 53-39 for the rest of the season so I could accomodate my cross bike with the FSA Energy Compact and give myself the opportunity to get the new BB technology over the winter for the Ottrott. (Can you say musical cranksets?)

BK

[Len J]

it has no practical advantages over a triple.

If a triple is set up correctly, shifiting is great.

With a triple, you get more gears, in a tighter range, which allows you to ride in any condition.

Maybe I'm just an old fa#t who doesn't give a heck what others think, but here is my logic:

I live in the flatlands but do take my bike to hillier/mountanous areas throughout the year. I have my bike set up with a D/A 9 speed triple with an FSA crank 50/39/28 triple. When I'm at home, I have a 12/23 and spend 10% of my time in the 50/39. I'm a spinner BTW. If I take the bike to a hilly area, I leave the 12/23 on but use the 28 CR to get up the hills. If I'm going to a mountanous area, I'll put on the 12/27 and with the 28 CR, I can spin up just about anything.

I've tried a compact, but the only thing it did was require me to shift back and forth between the 50 and the 34 more frequently. Shifting between the two requires more rear shifts to get the "step change" required....what a PIA. Maybe it's because I'm a spinner, but at my cadence, the CR shifts were frequent to get the right gear (w/o crossover).

A triple gives you wider gear ratios, tighter gearing, more flexibility to ride anywhere, and (for a non-racer) just makes a whole lot more sense than a compact.

I just don't get it.

Len

[jeffg]

it has no practical advantages over a triple.


I've tried a compact, but the only thing it did was require me to shift back and forth between the 50 and the 34 more frequently. Shifting between the two requires more rear shifts to get the "step change" required....what a PIA. Maybe it's because I'm a spinner, but at my cadence, the CR shifts were frequent to get the right gear (w/o crossover).

A triple gives you wider gear ratios, tighter gearing, more flexibility to ride anywhere, and (for a non-racer) just makes a whole lot more sense than a compact.

I just don't get it.

Len

Well, I have had a compact before the "craze" hit, i.e. before Tyler rode one in the TdF. The issue you are relating is unique to the 50/34 setup. Take a 50/36 and 48/34 and you get the gear spacing of a standard double with a slightly lower climbing gear. You can alter your gearing by simply swapping cassettes. I never really needed a triple in CA (and certainly don't in NYC!),. but it would be a pain to slap on a triple for certain events when swapping a cassette will do the job. Also, triples are massively repetitive in terms of gearing and do not shift as well in my experience, though they can shift fine. The real triple advantage in when you need something lower than 32-34 gear inches. a 13-29 triple can get most of us up anything. Yet I have found that a 34X27 gets me where I need to be. Why should I buy new shifters, FD/RD when I can just swap a crank or a cassette?


If Campy would just put out a 12-29 cassette in conjunction with the new compact, then a 48/34 will be a great option for many folks. A 52X13 up top and a better than a 30X25 equivalent bottom gear with relatively tight spacing and little to no overlap. Sounds good to me! :banana:

[93legendti]

it has no practical advantages over a triple.

If a triple is set up correctly, shifiting is great.

With a triple, you get more gears, in a tighter range, which allows you to ride in any condition.

Maybe I'm just an old fa#t who doesn't give a heck what others think, but here is my logic:

I live in the flatlands but do take my bike to hillier/mountanous areas throughout the year. I have my bike set up with a D/A 9 speed triple with an FSA crank 50/39/28 triple. When I'm at home, I have a 12/23 and spend 10% of my time in the 50/39. I'm a spinner BTW. If I take the bike to a hilly area, I leave the 12/23 on but use the 28 CR to get up the hills. If I'm going to a mountanous area, I'll put on the 12/27 and with the 28 CR, I can spin up just about anything.

I've tried a compact, but the only thing it did was require me to shift back and forth between the 50 and the 34 more frequently. Shifting between the two requires more rear shifts to get the "step change" required....what a PIA. Maybe it's because I'm a spinner, but at my cadence, the CR shifts were frequent to get the right gear (w/o crossover).

A triple gives you wider gear ratios, tighter gearing, more flexibility to ride anywhere, and (for a non-racer) just makes a whole lot more sense than a compact.

I just don't get it.

Len

practical advatages:
1. weight-- triple cranks add considerable rotating weight; the bottom bracket and crankset are heavier.
2. q factor-- triples throw your right leg farther out, if you have other bikes without triples, this can cause knee/ankle/hip/back pain if you switch between bikes a lot.
3. shifting-- much easier and crisper on a double than a triple and easier to keep proper shifting.
In 1999I , my triple's chain got wedged between the frame and crankset at the bottom of the Col D' Ghisallo, requiring the crankset to be removed to get the chain back on. (Luckily, my chianstay wasnot damaged.) That is when I switched to a double crankset, XTR cassette and a XTR rear derailleur. This year I upgraded to the FSA Compact.
4. Repeat gearing-- if you study a gear chart, you will notice on a triple there are more duplicate gear choices.

[Len J]

practical advatages:
1. weight-- triple cranks add considerable rotating weight; the bottom bracket and crankset are heavier.
2. q factor-- triples throw your right leg farther out, if you have other bikes without triples, this can cause knee/ankle/hip/back pain if you switch between bikes a lot.
3. shifting-- much easier and crisper on a double than a triple and easier to keep proper shifting.
In 1999I , my triple's chain got wedged between the frame and crankset at the bottom of the Col D' Ghisallo, requiring the crankset to be removed to get the chain back on. (Luckily, my chianstay wasnot damaged.) That is when I switched to a double crankset, XTR cassette and a XTR rear derailleur. This year I upgraded to the FSA Compact.
4. Repeat gearing-- if you study a gear chart, you will notice on a triple there are more duplicate gear choices.

Fair comments, I would argue with the following:

Weight is negliable.....Take a dump before you ride and you would have more impact.

Q Factor. Fair, I hadn't thought about that.

Shifting. Again negligible for non-racers.

Wedged Chain, could just as easily happen with a double.

Repeat gearing. I agree when the corncob is on. This lessens as you get a bigger cassette. In addition, it's why I went with the 50/30/28 as opposed to the 53/39/30.

Len

[gdw]

You can tell that most members of this forum are roadies when the topic of triples crops up. To those of us who ride off road, triples are a fact of life. They are not difflicult to shift and when setup properly -very easy to do with modern components- are reliable, crisp and precise.

[93legendti]

The FSA Compact crank weighs 515 grams. The BB is 172 grams, totalling 687 grams. The D/A triple crankset is 681 grams, the D/A BB for a triple is 217 grams, totalling 898 grams. How about I also take a dump before I ride and still have 211 less grams (almost 1/2 pound!) of rotating weight AND save my knee, ankle, hip and back?

[Len J]

The FSA Compact crank weighs 515 grams. The BB is 172 grams, totalling 687 grams. The D/A triple crankset is 681 grams, the D/A BB for a triple is 217 grams, totalling 898 grams. How about I also take a dump before I ride and still have 211 less grams (almost 1/2 pound!) of rotating weight AND save my knee, ankle, hip and back?

According to the FSA website:


1.) FSA Carbon Pro Team Issue - Triple = 660 Grams (which is what I have)
2.) FSA Carbon Pro Elite Compact + 521 Grams

Difference is 140 grams. a little more than 1/4 pound. Less than a minnie dump.

BTW BB differences are nominal.

And how does a 1/4 lb "save my knee, ankle, hip and back?

Len

[93legendti]

According to the FSA website:


1.) FSA Carbon Pro Team Issue - Triple = 660 Grams (which is what I have)
2.) FSA Carbon Pro Elite Compact + 521 Grams

Difference is 140 grams. a little more than 1/4 pound. Less than a minnie dump.

BTW BB differences are nominal.

Len

Yes the difference in BB 's is 16 grams. A total of 156 grams, or 5.5oz. Significant, I'd say. You disagree? Good for you.

[William]

I have a working theory that appropriate gearing for a given rider will change dependant on watts/kg ratio. Saying that a 39X53 is the right gearing for most riders might be a square peg in a round hole for alot of folks.

Square Peg Bill here. ;) :)

Call me old fashioned, call me crazy, but I have been riding a 53x39 with an 11 or 12x23 (with 180 cranks) for years and have not had any problems with it. Whether I'm climbing passes in Oregon and Montana, or the short, steep step climbs here in RI, that combo has worked for me. I have developed an internal tempo/rhythm to this gearing that allows me to get in-sync with the gearing and stay on top of the gear. Basically ride, not push the bike up the hills. It seems to be the right combo for me competitively, or recreationally.

Maybe I would like a triple or compact? I dunno. But my knees and everything else are fine sooooo, if it ain't broke, I'm not going to try to fix it.


William

[Marron]

I just happened to save the Polar plots for my RAMROD in '99 and this year. Both rides took about 8.5 hours; the '99 was ridden with a 52/29-12-23 combo, the '04 with a 50/34-12-25. What was interestesting is that the average heartrate for the '99 ride was 149bpm and this year's was 136bpm.

I would have expected the HR to decline a bit only because I'm 5 years older, but subjectively this year's ride felt much easier because of the ability to spin up the long hour+ climbs. When I looked closely at the plots it turned out that I was actually a little slower on the flats, wasted more time at the stops and was quite a bit quicker on the climbs for less effort. Works for me.

[Bruce K]

I just talked to my LBS guru and we talked about a D-A 10 speed compact crankset. He says that SHimano is NOT going to produce a Duraace compact crankset.

As he is both a Trek and Shimano dealer it is his understanding that the Trek will have either a Bontrager or FSA crankset if you select the 50-36 gearing.

He says everyone is going to have some type of compact gearing but that Shimano is not creating a second crankset according to his 2005 dealer info packet.

BK

[jeffg]

I just talked to my LBS guru and we talked about a D-A 10 speed compact crankset. He says that SHimano is NOT going to produce a Duraace compact crankset.

As he is both a Trek and Shimano dealer it is his understanding that the Trek will have either a Bontrager or FSA crankset if you select the 50-36 gearing.

He says everyone is going to have some type of compact gearing but that Shimano is not creating a second crankset according to his 2005 dealer info packet.

BK

Well, at least with FSA you can get the same crank/BB idea as DA 10 this year. I will likely be holding out for the Campy compact stuff, but may not go for it unless a 12-29 is forthcoming (based on the 2005 preview on Campy's website it's not). For now, the 53/39 13-29 will be the Campy option.

[Climb01742]

however, you can get a 50t that fits on a DA10 crank. i know cause i have one in my hot little hands.

[93legendti]

made by whom? thanks.

[Climb01742]

none other than...shimano. apparently only available in japan...unless you ask. odd. a shimano rep told me about them. just ask your LBS to order one. they're sweet looking.

[vaxn8r]

practical advatages:
3. shifting-- much easier and crisper on a double than a triple and easier to keep proper shifting.


I have a triple on my tandem. Ultegra shifters with XTR RD. It shifts as quickly and crisply as my Record or DA shift. No kidding. Just dial it in and it works!

Having said that I use a 53/39 on all my road bikes. I'm cosidering doing the same on my tandem but my street has a 16% incline and it's just no fun after a long hard ride.

[93legendti]

16%!! I'd walk that after a long ride!!

[vaxn8r]

Well, that's the thing, it's only 1/10th of a mile, so you could easily walk it, but I don't. Sometimes the legs are cramping pretty bad too....but I've never walked yet.