What are the big 3 waiting for to go sub-compact?

[AngryScientist]

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

[oldguy00]

SRAM is part way there

http://www.jensonusa.com/SRAM-Force-22-BB30-CX-Crankset

[jtbadge]

Originally Posted by oldguy00

SRAM is part way there

http://www.jensonusa.com/SRAM-Force-22-BB30-CX-Crankset

How do you figure? That's standard CX crank gearing, everyone sells those. You can't bolt on a ring smaller than 34t, and that's the long and short of the problem.

[ColnagoFan]

I'd like to see more 48-32T options out there...besides Praxis...

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

Yes, that's exactly what we need - yet another chainring BCD standard.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Yes, that's exactly what we need - yet another chainring BCD standard.

there is no current BCD "standard". everyone is doing their own thing.

[jtbadge]

I think Easton is going to make the big three turn their heads a little bit.

Direct mount 47t and 46t rings with 32t and 30t rings that bolt inside. I want to try one.



http://theradavist.com/2018/04/usefu...morgan-taylor/

[bigbill]

I got a 36/46 Ultegra crankset for the gravel bike because a 34/50 wouldn't be that useful off road. I'd rather have a stock offering in 34/44 or 32/44. With an 11-32 cassette, you could do just about any terrain on gravel.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

there is no current BCD "standard". everyone is doing their own thing.

And now you want them to do yet another version of their own thing, incompatible with their previous own things.

[Gummee]

Old math: 1 tooth in the back is worth 3 in the front.

IOW: making cassettes bigger is doing more for you than making rings smaller

M

[Bonesbrigade]

Yeah, gearing is at a weird point right now. I personally love the 50-34 paired with an 11-28 for my Rd. bike and 50-34 paired with an 11-32 for my mixed conditions bike.

I think what complicates things right now is there is this big desire for people wanting 1x drivetrains for everything: Road, cx, and All-road.

The problem with the 1x systems is the range and gaps aren't quite there yet for a lot of people. For 1x to be acceptable for the vast majority of riders, I think we need 12 or 13 speeds and eliminate the big gaps in the smallest cogs.

Then there is this sub-compact - this kind of feels like a short term solution until 1x systems get the correct amount of cogs in the back and the full range without silly gaps at the bottom of the cassette.

So...my view is sub compact is a bit in no man's land because people really want a proper 1x system.

[Lewis Moon]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

sram and shimano in particular. the cassettes keep getting bigger and bigger in the back, indicating the acceptance that lower gears are better for lots of people.

if i want a 46/30 up front and a reasonable gear stack in the back - why do i still need to go to a boutique crank option?

i wonder if any of them are considering a crankset with a small ring smaller than the "standard" compact 34t ring?

I have never understood the concept of super wide gearing in the back. It's as if the right cadence really doesn't matter.
IMHO, most of this thrutching around with 1X, super wide cassettes, discs, etc is about trying to stimulate demand by being different and not really about being better.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

And now you want them to do yet another version of their own thing, incompatible with their previous own things.

yes, that's what i would like to see. for the riding i do, i would like rings smaller than 34 for the front. 46/30 is my new happy spot.


actually, i think the Sram method is the way to go. their current cranks use direct mount chainrings or direct mount spiders. they could fairly easily make a spider capable of mounting smaller inner rings.

agree that easton looks great.

[AngryScientist]

the gearing on my zanc is literlly perfect for me. 46/30 front, 11-32 back.

i've used both the high/high and the low/low plenty, and am able to use the entire gear range without wanting anything higher or lower.

now i love the WI crankset, but if i could have a matchy-matchy crankset with the rest of the group - that would be sweet!

[unterhausen]

I have an mtb 42/28 on a road bike and it works pretty well. I think they should go for this combo instead of having a 30 as the smallest.

The truth is that too many people think they need the same high gears as a EPO-using pro and the parts manufacturers are just ignoring the small portion of us that have become realistic about this.

I have a 46/34 on my main road bike and I really like the 46 for a high gear. Let's just say that the 46 isn't what gets me dropped. I would have gotten a 44, but it wasn't as convenient to acquire. 50 teeth in combination with just about everything in the back was just too high of a gear.