Compact chainsets

FSR_XC

Buying my first road bike & I fancy some proper big gears, yet the guy in the shop said compact are better as you should 'spin' your legs faster.

Borrowed a 53 geared bike last year & didn't have any problems pedalling etc.

Is he more concerned about selling me the bike he has with a compact set?

Advantages / disadvantages of either set - please discuss.

Sea_Green_Incorruptible

And while we're on the topic, any of you old lags fancy explaining a bit about 'spinning'. What is it? And what are it's main advantages? I've seen it mentioned a few times on these pages, but having cycled for fun for years I've never come across it before....

maddog 2

it's the cadence of the cranks. You should push a gear which produces a crank speed of between 90-100 rpm on the flat. Less for hills.

Obviously there are some people who think mashing great big gears is more manly and all that but we'll take that with a pinch of salt I think. Spiining is more efficient and less strain on your joints.

Both versions can work - think Lance (spinner) versus Ulrich (masher). Both fairly quick.

redddraggon

maddog 2 wrote:

Spiining is more efficient ...

What is efficient is different from one person to the next.

maddog 2

possibly, or maybe people just get used to a particular cadence?

Smokin Joe

Gearing is personal and dependant on fitness, weight and type of riding. If you are a racing man living in Essex 53/39 is fine, if you are a leisure cyclist living in Yorkshire a compact would suit you better.

Spinning at a faster cadance is generally reckoned to be more efficient for most people, but that stuff about your knees exploding if you push high gears is nonsense. In the days of five speed blocks 42*21 was often the lowest gear ratio on most bikes and many thousands of cyclists pushed them up whatever hills they encountered. They are still riding or walking round today without any problems.

keithc440

I have noticed in my local bike shop over the last year that the majority of new bikes are equipped with a 50/34 compact chainring. I get the impression that this is on the way to becomming the standard offer. Ok if you live in North Wales or the like but where I live on the Merseyside / West Lancs border it would not be what I would be after. Don't mind a 50 outer ring but for the majority of my riding I prefer a 39 inner if I'm going uphill.

dennisn

I really like my compact. It's the way to go as far as I'm concerned. Bigger gearing range and less overlap of gears. I run a 50-34 & 12-21 around here(Toledo, Ohio)because
there are no hills. Each year I go to Colorado for a 7 day mountain tour and run 50-33
& 12-27. Works for me.

Dennis Noward

orv

No idea seems to be what most shops recommend. I decided to go with a 53/39 instead of a compact and haven't regretted it with the riding I do. Although a compact was suggested by the shop.
I know with the riding I do now that I simply wouldn't have the top gear I want with a compact. I do have a spare rear with a 12-27 on it and I simply swap rear wheels over if I think I need to go a bit lower.
Like anything its all a matter of personal preference.

Nobody ever got laid because they rode Shimano

aye, it's the money and sexy arse.

maddog 2

don't forget you can actually change the rings

compacts don't have to be 34/50

you can run 36/50, 36/48, 34/48 etc.

you could even run 52/38 if you wanted

the key point is that with a standard double chainset (130mm or 135mm BCD) you can't go lower than 38 for the small ring - which limits the range of gears you can create. Not a problem if you live in a flat area but for hilly trips and big day rides it can be an issue. Compacts are not constrained in this way.

aracer

maddog 2 wrote:

Both versions can work - think Lance (spinner) versus Ulrich (masher). Both fairly quick.

Ulrich was only a masher relative to Lance. He probably used a higher cadence than most on here.

I've got a compact in the post on its way to me for my new build. I've always ridden 53/39 in the past, and don't need lower than 39-23 for most of the riding I do, but put a 27 on for a couple of sportives this year, and reckon the lower gears will be handy. More to the point though, and the reason I've gone for compact is that you can get a wider range of gears without losing the close ratios, since the difference between the two rings is bigger.

nick hanson

aracer wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

Both versions can work - think Lance (spinner) versus Ulrich (masher). Both fairly quick.

Ulrich was only a masher relative to Lance. He probably used a higher cadence than most on here.

Oh I dunno,I can remember him being away with Vino & Kloden (was it the worlds?) And 'attacking' them on such a big gear,he looked as though he was just setting off on a TT!.
Still,it worked for him....well,till he got caught out :shock:

dennisn

orv wrote:

No idea seems to be what most shops recommend. I decided to go with a 53/39 instead of a compact and haven't regretted it with the riding I do. Although a compact was suggested by the shop.
I know with the riding I do now that I simply wouldn't have the top gear I want with a compact. I do have a spare rear with a 12-27 on it and I simply swap rear wheels over if I think I need to go a bit lower.
Like anything its all a matter of personal preference.

Nobody ever got laid because they rode Shimano

aye, it's the money and sexy ars*.

Talking about tall gears, a 50-11 is bigger than a 53-12. Now I don't know about you but
If you can push a 53-12 on any kind of a regular basis you belong on the pro tour.

Dennis Noward

Sea_Green_Incorruptible

8) Cool. Just tried to 'spin' my way home on my commute (7.5 miles, with 3 biggish hills and one long uphill drag on a roadie with a 53-39 Ultegra crankset) - made a REAL difference. My bike computer's broken at the moment so I don't know if I was actually faster, but it certainly FELT faster and I was less knackered at the end of each climb. Legs ache a tiny bit, but I guess that's just because I'm using muscles I don't usually use.

I shall resume my experiments tomorrow morning...

Zendog1

According to my training book spinning is less efficient (you use more energy to go a given distance) but lower stress on kness etc gives less chance of injury.

dennisn

Zendog1 wrote:

According to my training book spinning is less efficient (you use more energy to go a given distance) but lower stress on kness etc gives less chance of injury.

True, higher spinning rates are slightly less efficient, say 60 rpm compared to 90 rpm.
There is a theory that the reason most cyclist prefer a higher cadence is that it feels easier. This may be why almost all people, who ride lots, pros included, eventually
settle in at around 85 to 95 rpm's. This cadence is freely chosen by all of them and
there are few coaches who argue the point that it works.

Dennis Noward

FSR_XC

dennisn wrote:

Talking about tall gears, a 50-11 is bigger than a 53-12. Now I don't know about you but
If you can push a 53-12 on any kind of a regular basis you belong on the pro tour.

Dennis Noward

Is it?

Never thought of changing the cassette.

keithc440

Thanks for that reply Maddog 2. Didn't realise a compact cassette could take a 38 / 52 combination. Using a compact like this gives you pretty much a normal setup and the option of swapping to something smaller for severe hills. Anyone actually do this and do they find it simple to make the front derailleur adjustment ?

aracer

dennisn wrote:

Talking about tall gears, a 50-11 is bigger than a 53-12. Now I don't know about you but
If you can push a 53-12 on any kind of a regular basis you belong on the pro tour.

I use my 53-12 on a regular basis, and I'm not a big gear slogger, but then I live at the top of a hill I start all my rides going down, on which I can hit 35mph, which is 100rpm even in that gear - and I like to pedal down hills (it's not the only downhill like that on most of my rides). Oh, and I definitely don't belong on the pro tour.

Hence I've got an 11 cog to go with my 50 ring - probably don't really need it, but then neither do I need anything bigger at the other end of the cassette.

Mettan

I mostly notice what appear to be "relaxed" club groups "seeming" to run around 70-75 rpm (at a guess) - the only groups I've ever noticed using a high cadence are what appear to be 2 abrest club training runs were all the riders are wearing almost identical kit (and they are shifting a bit) - admitedly this comes from fleeting observations over the years but I very rarely see kitted out solo Sunday riders or "relaxed groups" running around 90-95 rpm - not saying it doesn't happen, it's probably common, just that I haven't seen much of it

Back on topic, I'm fitting an 11-32 in the next 2-3 days - should give me more scope when I need a rest.

McBain_v1

Mettan - is that a ten speed cassette that will give you those kind of ratio's :?:

Mettan

McBain_v1 wrote:

Mettan - is that a ten speed cassette that will give you those kind of ratio's :?:

8-speed - I was going to get an 11-34 but the 11-32 cropped up first, and for a good price (I've got a long cage rear mech on my roadie) - I think 39-32 works out at around 32 gear inches so that should be sufficient for hills if needed or more generally having a rest for a few minutes when tired etc - I've currently got a 13-28 on and found that after 30 miles or so 39-28 was not giving me the rest my knees (injury) required.

FSR_XC

Many thanks for the input.

Given me a lot of food for thought.

cougie

If you ever do any charity rides you'll notice that non cyclists usually have a much lower cadence than say, club cyclists. It takes time to learn how to spin.

A 53*12 combination isnt much use for most of us, unless you have legs like tree trunks. Work out how fast you'd be going if you are pushing that at say 80 and you'll realise you hardly ever hit those speeds or need those gears. A lot of it is the macho factor -look at the size of this !!

I'd say for a beginner - a compact would be much more useful.

wildmoustache

another compact fan here. as dennis says 50x11 is one big gear and easily big enough for most of us to sprint in I would suggest.

what I like about compacts is how little you have to change down at the front. the 50 ring will get you up all sorts of stuff. strictly speaking it might be more effecient to change down if the chainline is going to be a big diagonal, but it makes for a more relaxing ride just sticking in the 50 all day.

Steve928

Just to play devil's advocate, a switch to compact didn't do it for me.

I'm not against compacts per se, it's just that you need the consider the entire package i.e. chainset and cassette and the ratios that you're going to get from your chosen manufacturer. A couple of times last year I switched to Campag 50/34 12-25, but I just couldn't get on with it: the first 2 tooth jump on the 12-25 comes too soon and I could never find the correct gear for those all too common slight uphill or strong headwind stretches. Up, down, under-spinning, over-spinning, but never quite right.. I hated it.

Now back to my beloved 53/39 13-26 and that's where I'm staying. The extra one tooth step on the 13-26 makes for the perfect gear at every call: by the time the first 2 tooth change comes you need it, and the front changes are so much smoother.

Oh and to use a Campag compact I have to drop 5mm off the crank length - which loses me some of the compact's lower gearing anyway.

Weight-wise there's little in: the 50/34 and 53/39 are identical on my scales. 13-26 is heaveier than 12-25, but CT front mech is heavier than standard.

aracer

So run 12-23 on the compact, which when used with 50/34 puts the first 2-tooth jump at a lower speed than the first 2-tooth jump with 13-26 and 53/39, and also still gives you a slightly lower bottom gear.

There is no longer any difference between CT and standard front mechs on Campag (I've just fitted one which does both).

wildmoustache

SteveNcp wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, a switch to compact didn't do it for me.

I'm not against compacts per se, it's just that you need the consider the entire package i.e. chainset and cassette and the ratios that you're going to get from your chosen manufacturer. A couple of times last year I switched to Campag 50/34 12-25, but I just couldn't get on with it: the first 2 tooth jump on the 12-25 comes too soon and I could never find the correct gear for those all too common slight uphill or strong headwind stretches. Up, down, under-spinning, over-spinning, but never quite right.. I hated it.

Now back to my beloved 53/39 13-26 and that's where I'm staying. The extra one tooth step on the 13-26 makes for the perfect gear at every call: by the time the first 2 tooth change comes you need it, and the front changes are so much smoother.

Oh and to use a Campag compact I have to drop 5mm off the crank length - which loses me some of the compact's lower gearing anyway.

Weight-wise there's little in: the 50/34 and 53/39 are identical on my scales. 13-26 is heaveier than 12-25, but CT front mech is heavier than standard.

you sound a bit of a special case? I ride a Record 50-36 and then either 11-25 or 11-26 at the back. It's a great combo ... as good for criterium racing as it is for a long mountainous sportif. Don't like 50-34s though ... messy