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

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

We don't need a "new" standard. Just 94mm BCD, like mountain cranks in the 90's.

That would work great. The problem is, nobody has made a 94mm BCD crank in years, and all the existing 94mm BCD cranks use BBs (square taper, Octalink or ISIS) which require threaded BB shells, so they can't be used on most of today's carbon frames.

[AngryScientist]

yes, i'm running a few bikes with modified campy triples to run my preferred 46/30 - but this is not exactly an off the shelf modern solution....

[saab2000]

This is my solution: Ultegra 46-tooth outer chainring on the Shimano Dura Ace 9000 crankset. Ugly, but effective.

I really wish they made proper 46 and 32 tooth rings for at least the Ultegra line. These cyclocross rings work fine, but aren't very attractive with the adapter pieces. They're not the hollow rings, but rather flat rings with adapters to mate up with the hollow cranks.

They work great and the 46 is way more appropriate for most gravel rides, where even on the descents technique and braking supersede the highest possible gearing.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by BikeNY

This!!! Road bikes borrowed the 110 BCD from mountain bikes years ago, why not borrow the old MTB compact 94 BCD now.

Actually, the 110 BCD goes back further than that - it was released before the MTB was even invented. The 110/74 BCD has gone by many names:

When it came out in the early '70's , it was called a "touring crank"

When it was adopted by MTBs in the '80's, it was called an "MTB crank"

When Micro MTB cranks were released in the early '90's, the 110/74 was called "Standard MTB crank"

when Shimano used it for entry level hybrid bikes in the late '90's, it was called a "compact road crank"

When people who had bought road racing bikes because they wanted a bike like Lances, but discovered that they couldn't pedal racing gears up hill in the early '00's, the 110 BCD crank was called a "Racing Compact crank"

[GregL]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

that's a cool snapshot map Greg.

Thanks! 120" of annual snowfall aside, upstate NY is an excellent place for all kinds of cycling. For the gravel/dirt road enthusiasts, there's lots of racing and riding:

https://www.ridelcc.com/mudslinger-gravel-series.html
http://blackflychallenge.com/
http://www.rideoswegocounty.bike/get...he-valley.html

The Old Erie Canal Trail lives up to its nickname of "the long level," but passes through miles of beautiful country. Lots of rail trails also dot the landscape statewide.

Greg

[R3awak3n]

dunno if anyone mentioned it but absolute black now has rings that work on modern cranks that are subcompact... downside is.. they are ugly.



also the praxis subcompact is fantastic, praxis rings are some of the best out there. I did love my white industries and shifitng was fine but when compared to the praxis. uh uh, shoddy shifting. I like the easton crank a lot, would love to try it and do hope more companies come out with sub compact cranks

[zzy]

Remember that it took Shimano until 2006 to even release a compact crank. Thank god for FSA for pushing that along.

I actually agree with AngryScientist - why can't someone make an affordable 110BCD middle ring to pair with a 30 inner? This is basically what Sugino does for their $$$ supercompacts. I've tried several outer rings in this config but the crank bolts always get in the way. We have piles of 110/74 BCD cranks out there - make them great again!

I'm currently using a WI 48/30 and the shifting is far from ideal..

[benb]

If it's a double just make mine have no more than a 14 tooth difference between the rings, so I'd pick 44/30 over some of these other options.

53/39 just shifts so much better than 50/34.

That said it really sounds like a lot of people just need a triple.

Yesterday I took my Space Horse on some hilly single track and stuff, usually I'd take my MTB there but I was there and felt like going off the road. I could have used lower than the 34x32 low gear a few places. I was in the bottom gear probably turning 80rpm at most and right on the verge of spinning the rear tire. Same thing carrying baggage or pulling a trailer.

But the 44 ring would drive me bonkers on the way back from the dirt part of the ride if I was unloaded. Way too low.

I would have just said Shimano, etc.. probably just have the viewpoint that a triple solves all these problems better than any of these silly subcompact/compact options but then they are going and cancelling the triples because everyone is still insane about this macho thing with only having 2 rings.

[KarlC]

Well I want a bigger range, I want a 53/34 with an 11-32

I need the 53 with 11 out back for the pace line and going down hills solo

I need the 34 with 32 out back to my weak legs and steep hills

.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by zzy

Remember that it took Shimano until 2006 to even release a compact crank. Thank god for FSA for pushing that along.

Shimano has made 110mm BCD cranks since about 1982. The first were triple cranks (for MTBs), but by the late '90s, they made 110mm double cranks, which were labeled 'Hyperdrive-C' (Hyperdrive compact). These might not have been on your radar, since they were entry level cranks made for hybrid bikes. It was in the '00s that Shimano brought the 110mm BCD to their upper level groups.

Originally Posted by zzy

I actually agree with AngryScientist - why can't someone make an affordable 110BCD middle ring to pair with a 30 inner? This is basically what Sugino does for their $$$ supercompacts. I've tried several outer rings in this config but the crank bolts always get in the way. We have piles of 110/74 BCD cranks out there - make them great again!

Those Sugino OX series chainrings aren't really middle chainrings, they are specifically made to be outer chainrings - middle chainrings don't have chain anti-jam pins, but Sugino's OX series chainrings do have the anti-jam pins. So even Sugino's sub-compact solution is a bit of a non-standard hodge-podge.

[muz]

Originally Posted by KarlC

Well I want a bigger range, I want a 53/34 with an 11-32

I need the 53 with 11 out back for the pace line and going down hills solo

I need the 34 with 32 out back to my weak legs and steep hills

.

I often hear this, but never really understand. 53x11 at 120rpm is 46mph. Really?

[FlashUNC]

It's only a matter of time as the median age of the customer base continues to climb.

The pool ain't gettting any younger or larger.

[GregL]

Originally Posted by muz

I often hear this, but never really understand. 53x11 at 120rpm is 46mph. Really?

Gotta' agree on this one. With the exception of downhill on our tandem, I need a 53x11 about once a year. It's usually in a race with a downhill and/or tailwind finish. And even then, I really don't need it as much as want it. Heck, I've ridden fast pacelines with a 46T big ring many times.

Greg

[sandyrs]

Originally Posted by benb

But the 44 ring would drive me bonkers on the way back from the dirt part of the ride if I was unloaded. Way too low.

a 44-11 at 90rpm with a 700x32 tire is 29mph. Do you really need to crush it at 30+ mph on the ride back from the trail? My experience riding my cx bike with a 40-11 high gear around here has been absolutely fine, and that even includes some fairly long road rides.

[zzy]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Shimano has made 110mm BCD cranks since about 1982. The first were triple cranks (for MTBs), but by the late '90s, they made 110mm double cranks, which were labeled 'Hyperdrive-C' (Hyperdrive compact). These might not have been on your radar, since they were entry level cranks made for hybrid bikes. It was in the '00s that Shimano brought the 110mm BCD to their upper level groups.

I'm fully aware of Shimanos triple cranks and even the older compact drive - I'm clearly referring to road doubles with standard road chainline. I remember when roadies were shamed for having a 39x27 in the back...

Those Sugino OX series chainrings aren't really middle chainrings, they are specifically made to be outer chainrings - middle chainrings don't have chain anti-jam pins, but Sugino's OX series chainrings do have the anti-jam pins. So even Sugino's sub-compact solution is a bit of a non-standard hodge-podge.

Obviously not what I meant - I mean a big ring in the middle position with chain drop catcher, recessed chainring bolts on the inside, and approprate ramps and pins. Exactly like the OX901.