Fitting a compact ... right thing to do?

Buggi · June 2007

i've just ordered a compact chainset to be fitted to my bike. i feel like i've took a step back (got a double on at the moment) because i've had my double for 4 years. thing is, i'm going to Paris on my bike and i'm a bit worried about hills (mostly the ones in England) because i'm crap at hills and there is none to practice on round here. tell me i've done the right thing please and i'm not just being a wimp.

_____________________________________________

To infinity... and beyond!
my epic adventure: www.action.org.uk/~Antonia

nolf · June 2007

Compact = clever [:)]

Means you can spin up climbs opposed to grinding your bottom gear for hill after hill. Will save your knees from painful death and make hills a lot more manageable.

If you really feel your compact isn't necessary after trying out a few big hills near the end of long rides, then swap your back casette for a 12-23 combination.

Pride speaks, but Elephants listen...

Unknown · June 2007

What nolf says!

Seems entirely sensible to me. No point to cycling if it's not enjoyable.

d.j.
"The Angels have my 'phone box."

2191flint · June 2007

Oh God yes, get a compact, much better than a triple, anyone who shows an inclination to fit a triple chainring to a road bike, should, IMHO be taken out at dawn and flogged with a damp copy of cycling news [;)][:(]LOL!!

Your knees will thank you in years to come.

Have you got your bounce under control yet?[;)]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/

Buggi · June 2007

LOL you're making me laugh. i don't feel such a wimp now. maybe being flogged with a damp copy of cycling news might be quite enjoyable??!!

yes, my cadence is up to 90 without a bounce (when i remember to concentrate and i'm not just tootling along enjoying the countryside in my own time) so thanx for all your advice on that one too.

_____________________________________________

To infinity... and beyond!
my epic adventure: www.action.org.uk/~Antonia

Unknown · June 2007

You probably won't even notice the lower top gear, the difference between a standard 53 and a 50 is next to nothing. But you sure will appreciate the bottom gear a compact gives you, a wise choice for anyone not racing.

Nobody ever got laid because they were using Shimano

Dearo · June 2007

I'm a newbie and therefore could you kindly explain the difference between a compact and erm.... a non compact ??

Excuse my terminology

Regards

Dearo

2191flint · June 2007

Martin, <s>on my bike</s>, er, sorry your bike! the Tiagra chain ring you have is a compact, as Smokin just pointed out not much of a noticeable difference on the big ring, you'll still be able to power along, but on the smaller 34t inner ring , you will appreciate the extra cog (at the rear)26t (if I remember) on climbs, unless you are racing i.e. taking part in real competitive events to win, rather than sportives, you don't, IMHO need a 52/39.

Buggi,

Glad I made you laugh, it's a good thing to be able to make someone laugh, preferably if it's with them/ you rather than at you/them! So have you got your size/fit issue sorted then? We still need to see some photo's tho[;)]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/

photojonny · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dearo

I'm a newbie and therefore could you kindly explain the difference between a compact and erm.... a non compact ??

Excuse my terminology

Regards

Dearo
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Compact refers to the the front chainrings on a bike, the chainrings attached to the pedals by the crank arms.

There are three types. A 'triple' has three rings. You find this on most bikes that you see around town. On a road bike they tend to have a large ring with 50-53 'teeth', and middle with 40-42 teeth, and a small ring with 30 teeth (sometime shown as 53/42/30). Some people think triples are a bad idea because a) they are more fiddly to set up and are prone to the chain rubbing on the front mechanism, and b) they think they are uncool, because having a small 30 tooth chainring to get up hills means you are a wimp. Each to their own.

A 'double' is the same as above, but with the smallest ring missing (so 53/42). Stronger riders who can get up hills using the 40 tooth ring tend to use these - they are therefore seen as cool by some people, as they are what the pro's use, and mark you as a good/strong cyclist/man.

A 'compact' is somewhere between the two. It just has two rings, but they tend to be 50/34. This gives you a smaller ring to help get up hills. Some people say they are the best of both worlds. Others say they are still a bit wimpy, and that you have to shift between the front rings more to use the middle range of gears.

Some people also feel that two chainrings (either double or compact) are more aesthetically pleasing than three. This may or may not be linked to the fact that real racers use two rings, thus that's what a real road bike should look like.

where there's two wheels, there's a way....

2191flint · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by photojonny

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dearo

I'm a newbie and therefore could you kindly explain the difference between a compact and erm.... a non compact ??

Excuse my terminology

Regards

Dearo
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Compact refers to the the front chainrings on a bike, the chainrings attached to the pedals by the crank arms.

There are three types. A 'triple' has three rings. You find this on most bikes that you see around town. On a road bike they tend to have a large ring with 50-53 'teeth', and middle with 40-42 teeth, and a small ring with 30 teeth (sometime shown as 53/42/30). Some people think triples are a bad idea because a) they are more fiddly to set up and are prone to the chain rubbing on the front mechanism, and b) they think they are uncool, because having a small 30 tooth chainring to get up hills means you are a wimp. Each to their own.

A 'double' is the same as above, but with the smallest ring missing (so 53/42). Stronger riders who can get up hills using the 40 tooth ring tend to use these - they are therefore seen as cool by some people, as they are what the pro's use, and mark you as a good/strong cyclist/man.

A 'compact' is somewhere between the two. It just has two rings, but they tend to be 50/34. This gives you a smaller ring to help get up hills. Some people say they are the best of both worlds. Others say they are still a bit wimpy, and that you have to shift between the front rings more to use the middle range of gears.

Some people also feel that two chainrings (either double or compact) are more aesthetically pleasing than three. This may or may not be linked to the fact that real racers use two rings, thus that's what a real road bike should look like.

where there's two wheels, there's a way....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pretty good summary, but just watch out who you call 'wimpy' LOL! I've got my damp copy of Cycling news VERY close to hand Jonny boy!![;)]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/

photojonny · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 2191flint

Pretty good summary, but just watch out who you call 'wimpy' LOL! I've got my damp copy of Cycling news VERY close to hand Jonny boy!![;)]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, no, I ride a triple and I'm not ashamed. I think sometimes newbies are encouraged to ride a double or compact for reasons of cool, when a triple would make life easier and more enjoyable for them.

I'm not into all that macho BS.

where there's two wheels, there's a way....

2191flint · June 2007

I'm not either (macho) but I do like the aesthetic appearance of just two shiny chainrings, especially my nice new Campagnolo Centaur chainrings, which are MUCH betterer than that old Shiman* rubbish I used to have <take cover> Shimano V. Campag assault incoming LOL[;)]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/

photojonny · June 2007

I've only ridden shimano, but as I only have Sora I have the thumb shifter, which I really like. Thus if I get a nice bike in a couple of years I'll probably go campag for that reason.

I do think two rings look better than three off the bike, but that little third one looks especially lovely when I'm slogging up a hill.....

where there's two wheels, there's a way....

2191flint · June 2007

My last bike, (which Dearo now owns), had a full Shimano Tiagra groupset, and it was perfectly adequate, it did everything I needed it to do, however I had always yearned for that Carbon framed Italian ( Taiwanese!) frame with a nice spangly Campag gruppo, mainly I s'pose cos I had bought into the whole Campag pedigree thing.

As the guy in the shop said One of them makes parts for Ferrari, the other one makes fishing tackle!

Well I have to say that the new Campag does what the old Shimano did, but I grin like a Cheshire cat now (people must think I'm mad as I cycle past) just to hear those gears change and the almost silent Whirring of the Chorus chain whizzing over the Chainrings and cassette, is bliss.

I have to keep pedalling tho' cos the 'comedy' ratchet/pawl on the rear cassette is loud enough to wake Marco Pantani !!

Oddly I disliked my old Sora Shifters, but I get on much better with the Campag Ergo's?![8D]

A turkey is just for Christmas, not for life.

Me and my bike- http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/galleries/flintosaur9/

Fitting a compact ... right thing to do?

Comments

Categories