compact v granny ring

dod 1

When i bought my frist road bike i got one with a triple chainset but was advised not to use the granny ring as it would make you lazy i have followed this advice so i have bottom gear of 42/25 but now the people who said not to use the granny ring have compact chainset with a bottom gear of 34/25 what i would like to know is a granny ring still not acceptable or should i use it without feeling like a outcast.

maddog 2

I'd listen to people less and use the gear you think you should

Anonymous

Compacts are for wuzzers who don't want to be seen using a granny ring

Joking aside, if the time or occasion arises when you need the granny ring then just use it.
Nobody will notice let alone care.

amaferanga

The reason many cyclists are against triples is because they've got their head so far up their a***s they can't see that they make sense for most cyclists

andyp

Triples are for tourists.

Rob Sallnow

Compacts are for those in need of a triple but in denial.

The added bonus of a triple is that your most used ring (the middle one) will last longer than the smaller ring of the compact.

kmahony

I've got both. Better range on the triple, but find the compact seems to work better.
Short cage rear mech makes changing slicker and the double on the front is easier to setup.

Probably a personal thing, but the compact seems to suit the way I ride. (with the triple I don't seem to use the middle ring)

Too heavy for a double.

ash68

I have a triple on my summer road bike and am happy to use the small ring as and when I need to.Don't see the problem.If the hills are steep enough drop down a chainring and spin an easier gear.To me it's more energy efficient and saves your knees from strains and aches and pains.

richardjallen

For comparison a 50/34 11-23 has both higher (50/11) and lower (34/25) ratios than a 53/39 12-25.

bryanm

I was in the Specialized Concept Store in Birmingham last week. Apparently, on all but the lowest spec road bikes for '08 they are scrapping triples and putting compacts on.

No ide what any of that means... :?

sbullett

Having just got back into road riding after 25 years, I got a Giant SCR2.0 triple, and thank goodness I did, it's rather hilly here in West Yorkshire and I need to know the granny (30/25 - 32 inch) is there if I need it

However, I am already thinking that all that changing on the front rings is a real pain (two mangled chains so far) and, inevitably planning the next bike already, thinking that a compact with a decent sized large ring on the cassette might be the way to go?

Does anyone know whether you can get a 11-27 rear cassette? That would give me a 34/27 (33 inch) to 50/11 (120 inch) which equals my current set up......

simbil1

I run a compact with a 12-27 on the rear and it gives a nice range of gears. I haven't found a hill I can't get up yet and can do the local 1:5 in the saddle when in 34>27 (just). The top gear gets me going over 30mph so is fine for my needs.
A triple only gives 1 more low gear at the cost of additional weight. If I needed a smaller gear, I would get smaller compact front rings instead like 48/32. Each to there own though, if you like triples, go for it.

aracer

http://www.interlocracing.com/cassettes_steel.html

Though you can also make one from a standard Shimano 12-27 by removing the 16 (or the 14 if it's a 9-speed) and putting a 11 from another cassette on the front.

Are you really sure you need the 11 though? I was debating whether I need one myself, and I certainly don't normally need as low a gear at the other end. Would certainly happily use 12/27 with a compact if I was doing Alpine climbs where I felt the need, and simply either spin more or coast sooner on the downs.

smoo

A 50/36 compact with an 11-23 has for all practical purposes exactly the same lowest gear as a 53/39 with 12-25 (41.4 inches vs. 41.3) and, as has already been pointed out, the highest gear is bigger (120.3 inches vs. 116.9, about half a gear's worth).

Cassette is smalller and lighter, chainrings too, and you need less chain.

pinarellodude

I recently converted to a compact and it's been one off the best buys I've ever bought along with a cadance computer. I'm fairly well built and been a pusher off large gears and the compact has sort off re educated me into spining, and keeping the revs around the 80 rpm mark instead off pushing it around at 50/60rpm. 8)

maddog 2

simbil1 wrote:

If I needed a smaller gear, I would get smaller compact front rings instead like 48/32. .

110 BCD only goes down to 34 teeth, practically

33 is possible but no one makes a 33 ring AFAIK

aracer

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/chai ... 10.html#33

simbil1

maddog 2 wrote:

simbil1 wrote:

If I needed a smaller gear, I would get smaller compact front rings instead like 48/32. .

110 BCD only goes down to 34 teeth, practically

33 is possible but no one makes a 33 ring AFAIK

Good point - you'd need to go down to 104 BCD to get 32 - I've no idea if that would work with a regular front mech though. Would probably limit big chain ring to 44 as well...

maddog 2

if you needed smaller rings then Middleburn do the Duo

see http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Kits ... delID=3345

and there is also the Stronglight Oxale

http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php ... 2b2s109p43

Gragi

I like the look of that oxale. I've got a 42-32 (with 22 ditched) on my winter bike which will need replacing at some point, and that looks like it might do the trick.

I wanted to double check - ISIS bottom bracket - is this shimano compatible (as in pre Hollowtech II style)?

Gragi

I think I'll rephrase my question as it doesn't make sense. What I meant to say was will an old style shimano bottom bracket for 105 cranks - not square tapered (octalink) - work with this? Or is ISIS annoyingly not compatible?

Thanks

maddog 2

isis and octalink are different, so no.

SKF make good ISIS BBs though, but they're not cheap.

Rob Sallnow

sbullett wrote:

However, I am already thinking that all that changing on the front rings is a real pain (two mangled chains so far) and, inevitably planning the next bike already, thinking that a compact with a decent sized large ring on the cassette might be the way to go?

I've always treated my triple (Record 53-42-30) as a double....with a 30 for occassional use if I go anywhere really bumpy like Dartmoor....I don't have 'all that changing on the front rings'.

crackle

Rob Sallnow wrote:

sbullett wrote:

However, I am already thinking that all that changing on the front rings is a real pain (two mangled chains so far) and, inevitably planning the next bike already, thinking that a compact with a decent sized large ring on the cassette might be the way to go?

I've always treated my triple (Record 53-42-30) as a double....with a 30 for occassional use if I go anywhere really bumpy like Dartmoor....I don't have 'all that changing on the front rings'.

Ditto - even reduced my 52 to a 49 but i still don't use it as the 42 to 25-12 covers all my cadences and speeds quite nicely with the 30 for big bumpy bits and the 42 and some gritty teeth for short bumpy bits

sbullett

crackle wrote:

Rob Sallnow wrote:

sbullett wrote:

However, I am already thinking that all that changing on the front rings is a real pain (two mangled chains so far) and, inevitably planning the next bike already, thinking that a compact with a decent sized large ring on the cassette might be the way to go?

I've always treated my triple (Record 53-42-30) as a double....with a 30 for occassional use if I go anywhere really bumpy like Dartmoor....I don't have 'all that changing on the front rings'.

Ditto - even reduced my 52 to a 49 but i still don't use it as the 42 to 25-12 covers all my cadences and speeds quite nicely with the 30 for big bumpy bits and the 42 and some gritty teeth for short bumpy bits

Thanks for all the advice!

I guess in reality I also use mine as a double except for the nasty hills. But what I meant by having to change a lot was because of the chain angle on the triple I can't use the bottom 3 gears when I'm on the big ring at the front. I'd like to be able to tackle slight rises using the big ring, but have to drop onto the middle. I'm fairly sure I've heard that you can use more of the gears on the large ring on a compact because of the straighter chain run :?:

Weight is not much of an issue for me, I weigh close on 100Kg so a few hundred grams won't make much difference :oops:

Final point is on needing an 11 - that's why I got a road bike - to go faster :twisted: I got fed up of running out of gears on my MTB with slicks at 40mph, now I can get up to 47'ish on a nice hill

crackle

Do you know what gears you normally ride? i.e. in gear inches or ratios. If you know this you can work out what gears you need. i.e. a 50x18 and a 42x16 are virtually the same gear (75 inches). So if your most well used gear was 75inch gear you could work out what combination of front chainrings and rear block would work for you (see Sheldon's website to work out your gears, stick it in an Excel spreadsheet and play around a bit).

I used to ride a 50, 36 front with a 6 speed 13-28 rear but now I ride a triple. BUT I still use the same gears, around 64 - 75 inches with a cadence around 85, good for 14-21 ish mph on varying terrain. When I rode the compact (I don't think they were called compacts then) I used to change gear less because the jumps were bigger but now I flick the lever a lot more often as the gear ratios are closer which makes things more comfortable and easier to keep a cadence.

You need to understand what gear range you ride now to decide whether a compact is better for you than a triple. It depends on that and the terrain you intend to ride and the riding you intend to do. I hope that makes some sense :roll:

PS I never pedal downhill, coasting is my reward for going up!

PPS I have an Excel spreadsheet I can send you which works out gears and cadences and shows speed for each - It doesn't quite agree with Sheldons but it's close enough for me and would illustrate what I mean.

pieinthesky

Why not have a compact with a granny ring. Several manufacturers make them.

You can have a wide range of gears with small gaps without having a huge ugly MTB 11 to 28 cassette.

I would bet that its no heavier than a compact set up as the little alloy chainring weighs nothing compared to the additional weight of a huge cassette with 9 or 10 steel sprockets.

Dont let fashion influence your decision. Many riders who say they never need a triple probably never ride very far. Ride 150 miles then go up a 1 in 4 and you need one!

pieinthesky

And I forgot to mention...

If you have to many gears, so what. If you have to few you will struggle.

Gragi

It's all down to personal ability and preference. Ability (which can obviously be worked on by training) sets what is physically possible. Personal preference brings in other factors.

Another way of saying this: Ability will determine the choice of gear ratio - minimum and maximum required for type of riding. Personal choice will determine how you achieve that ratio.

I've had triple,double and compact. Unfortunately I'm too old to care what other riders may think about granny ring and racing bike - but a triple chainset annoyed me because of three changes on the front and the long rear mech. So my personal choice is two chain rings on the front. My ability (and fitness level) mean that for some of my riding a double is too hard for me. Therefore, I've opted for a compact.

With 34-25 I can get up anything (and I'm no climber). I'll back this statement up by the following: Zillertal Hohenstrasse in Austria - quite a few different options but the routes I chose were 13.3km at 10.5% average and 10.6km at 11.4%. Some stretches of over 20% on both climbs. The first took me almost 2 hours the second 1 hour 45 minutes. i.e. snail pace, if not slower.

Now I could have done it with 30-23 or 30-25 or even 22-25 (or whatever). I'm not convinced I would have done it much (if at all) quicker. I do know that there's no way I could have got up it with less than 34-25, so a standard 39-23/25 would have been the wrong choice for me. But I'm sure there are people on this forum who could have (and will have done), and I guess most professional cyclists could get up it on that gearing, although they may choose in a race to go for another ratio because it is more efficient/appropriate for their needs at that time.

Phew, I feel better for writing that! But probably sound like a pompous tw@t

Gragi

It's all down to personal ability and preference. Ability (which can obviously be worked on by training) sets what is physically possible. Personal preference brings in other factors.

Another way of saying this: Ability will determine the choice of gear ratio - minimum and maximum required for type of riding. Personal choice will determine how you achieve that ratio.

I've had triple,double and compact. Unfortunately I'm too old to care what other riders may think about granny ring and racing bike - but a triple chainset annoyed me because of three changes on the front and the long rear mech. So my personal choice is two chain rings on the front. My ability (and fitness level) mean that for some of my riding a double is too hard for me. Therefore, I've opted for a compact.

With 34-25 I can get up anything (and I'm no climber). I'll back this statement up by the following: Zillertal Hohenstrasse in Austria - quite a few different options but the routes I chose were 13.3km at 10.5% average and 10.6km at 11.4%. Some stretches of over 20% on both climbs. The first took me almost 2 hours the second 1 hour 45 minutes. i.e. snail pace, if not slower.

Now I could have done it with 30-23 or 30-25 or even 22-25 (or whatever). I'm not convinced I would have done it much (if at all) quicker. I do know that there's no way I could have got up it with less than 34-25, so a standard 39-23/25 would have been the wrong choice for me. But I'm sure there are people on this forum who could have (and will have done), and I guess most professional cyclists could get up it on that gearing, although they may choose in a race to go for another ratio because it is more efficient/appropriate for their needs at that time.

Phew, I feel better for writing that! But probably sound like a pompous tw@t

Gragi

It's all down to personal ability and preference. Ability (which can obviously be worked on by training) sets what is physically possible. Personal preference brings in other factors.

Another way of saying this: Ability will determine the choice of gear ratio - minimum and maximum required for type of riding. Personal choice will determine how you achieve that ratio.

I've had triple,double and compact. Unfortunately I'm too old to care what other riders may think about granny ring and racing bike - but a triple chainset annoyed me because of three changes on the front and the long rear mech. So my personal choice is two chain rings on the front. My ability (and fitness level) mean that for some of my riding a double is too hard for me. Therefore, I've opted for a compact.

With 34-25 I can get up anything (and I'm no climber). I'll back this statement up by the following: Zillertal Hohenstrasse in Austria - quite a few different options but the routes I chose were 13.3km at 10.5% average and 10.6km at 11.4%. Some stretches of over 20% on both climbs. The first took me almost 2 hours the second 1 hour 45 minutes. i.e. snail pace, if not slower.

Now I could have done it with 30-23 or 30-25 or even 22-25 (or whatever). I'm not convinced I would have done it much (if at all) quicker. I do know that there's no way I could have got up it with less than 34-25, so a standard 39-23/25 would have been the wrong choice for me. But I'm sure there are people on this forum who could have (and will have done), and I guess most professional cyclists could get up it on that gearing, although they may choose in a race to go for another ratio because it is more efficient/appropriate for their needs at that time.

Phew, I feel better for writing that! But probably sound like a pompous tw@t