Compact vs Double....

FOAD

I know it's normally the compact vs triple question that gets fanboys of each ranting and raving, so hopefully the double vs what I see as a"mini" double question should see less friction.

I am a few days from taking delivery of a new road bike (C2W scheme). I currently ride an MTB to work at least twice per week over a relatively flat course of between 11 and 15 miles each way depending on route. There are a selection of hills on the way, but really only long gentle climbs or very short steepish ones, defintely no long steep climbs than god.

I have been doing this for about a month and am getting fitter fast. I am very heavy, and pretty powerful in the legs and really need to work on muscular endurance on the anaerobic spurts up hills more than anything, which I guess will come pretty quickly with more cycling and especially hill work.

My conundrum is whether to stick with the compact that is fitted to the bike (Ultegra SL 50/34) with a 12/27 cassette or change it out to a 53/39 carbon crankset being offered FOC by my LBS. The LBS have suggested it as an option as they know the route I ride and my build/strength etc.

My MTB is a triple and I spin out the top gear very easily on the slightest decline. Am I kidding myself that I will be capable of doing the same on a compact? If so then there really is no dilemma and I will stick with the compact so that when I get adventurous and hit a hilly course I have a couple of lower gears than I would on the double. On the other hand if other big and powerful guys have found that they do spinout on the compact, I would be concerned and rather opt towards the double just as a bit of insurance and put up with occasionally having to grind my way up a hill rather than have a better lower gear.

I am happy that a double will be fine for the commute, but I have to factor in that I will use the bike elsewhere and don't want to have to shy away from big hills. The LBS are happy for me to ride the compact for a couple of days and then change up to the double if I think I need to, but I will still, without other advice, have my doubts about switching up.

And finally, I would just say there is no "image" issue. I don't want the double because it's cool. I am only interested in it if it will save me from wanting to upgrade to one in later months.

Opinions very much invited.

Mettan

If you're planning on doing a number of hilly Sportives each year, then a Compact seems sensible - if however, you're just comuting on the flat or planning on predominantly Training/Racing on the flat in the future then a Double would be ok. Depends on the exact nature of what you feel you'll be doing in the near future? By the sounds of what you've mentioned "very heavy", personally I'd get a Compact - you can ride on flat with them, and they'll give you welcome lower gearing when you hit the hills. (I prefer Doubles on the flat, but due to finances, I use a Compact as an all-round chainset at the mo - need 2 bikes).

maddog 2

it all depends on whether spinning out is more of a hassle than grinding away up a hill.

personally, this question has a obvous answer but you'll have to make the decision for you based on your fitness, cadence and terrain you intend to ride.

tenor

FOAD
Yes, a compact double is more of an alternative to a racing double than it is to a triple, which has other virtues.
The range of Shimano / SRAM cassettes now suits the compact more tha the racing double with 11 and 12 tooth sprockets being the norm.
It is very easy to swop cassettes to tune the ratios to your ride route should you find this an issue. It is also possible to change chainrings.
Some top pro riders, such as Sastre, use a 52/36 combination on a 110 compact spider.
My advice would be to go with the compact, because you will have many more gearing options.
Campag users (well, 10speed ones) have the benefit of a 13-29 cassette which gives similar ratio spread to a 50/34 & 12-25.

roger_merriman

going down hills getting into the, postion that cuts though the air will likely do more than gearing, you've got the weight to help you down.

i like finding steep hills and am fairly heavy my self so i chose to have a compact with a 27/12 at the back i don't nessarly use all the gears but they are handy to have that spread.

the choice is do you want a good spread of gears or closer range gears?

FOAD

I think the safe bet is for me to stick with the compact until I get a bit more road experinece...at least enough to tell whether I feel something is "missing".

Thanks for all the advice.

Craigbes

I've recently taken delivery of a kinetic one kitted out with a campy centaur compact with a 13-29 cassette. I was thinking of going to a standard double due to the 13 -29 range but glad I didn't. I'm a tad under 16 stone and boy am I glad i've got the compact for the hills. As Roger Merriman above said, you can make your own speed going down hill, but going up you want all the help you can get.

markos1963

I have a compact on my best bike and whilst I don't mind it I finds its not perfect, the jump from big to small ring and visa versa is too big in my opinion. You have to go up or down at least 2 sprockets at the rear prior to changing and I find that irritating. My other bike has a classic 53/42 double and the changes are far smoother and cadence friendly. I run a 7 speed 14-28 block on it and I can get up all the hills around here. I would say the best combination would be a 53/39 double and a 12/28 cassette(Sram do one and it runs fine on Shimano groupsets). You would then have the upper and lower end gear options covered.

nickwill

markos1963 wrote:

I have a compact on my best bike and whilst I don't mind it I finds its not perfect, the jump from big to small ring and visa versa is too big in my opinion. You have to go up or down at least 2 sprockets at the rear prior to changing and I find that irritating. My other bike has a classic 53/42 double and the changes are far smoother and cadence friendly. I run a 7 speed 14-28 block on it and I can get up all the hills around here. I would say the best combination would be a 53/39 double and a 12/28 cassette(Sram do one and it runs fine on Shimano groupsets). You would then have the upper and lower end gear options covered.

I think your answer might be Norfolk specific. If you lived in Cumbria like I do, or almost anywhere with hills, I think you would miss the lower gears.

markos1963

Nickwill wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I have a compact on my best bike and whilst I don't mind it I finds its not perfect, the jump from big to small ring and visa versa is too big in my opinion. You have to go up or down at least 2 sprockets at the rear prior to changing and I find that irritating. My other bike has a classic 53/42 double and the changes are far smoother and cadence friendly. I run a 7 speed 14-28 block on it and I can get up all the hills around here. I would say the best combination would be a 53/39 double and a 12/28 cassette(Sram do one and it runs fine on Shimano groupsets). You would then have the upper and lower end gear options covered.

I think your answer might be Norfolk specific. If you lived in Cumbria like I do, or almost anywhere with hills, I think you would miss the lower gears.

Probably right but reading the OP's post it seems he lives in a similar sort of area to me so my suggestion might be relevant.

ps I think in really hilly areas a triple is better than a compact.

Bengdogg

Coming from mountain biking to roading i faced the same question and it would of been a bad idea to get a double as I did a sportive a couple of weeks back where i used every gear i had up the climbs as they were a lot steeper than round where i live. On the compact ive had it up to 47mph so its not really a slow option

aberdeen_lune

Yes but I bet you werent peddling at 47mph!!!!

Bengdogg

Just stopped as it was like a helicopter

guilliano

Unless you intend to race I'd opt for a compact. I had no problems changing from the 34t ring to the 50t ring on the same rear sprocket on flat sections, just got a sudden burst of acceleration and found that cadence slowed temporarily. I did 14 miles from work to home yesterday on a fairly undulating road at an average speed of around 20mph on my compact with a 12-27 cassette and never got near top gear. I never felt that I was wanting for a lower or higher gear at any point

strodey

Been mtbing for two years went out on a road bike for first time today, its a compact and i didn't use the smaller front ring, i'm already thinking i need a double and i live in a hilly area!
I was amazed what a doddle these road bikes are to get up even the steeper hills!

redddraggon

Apart from the really steep stuff around me (like Pen Barras) a 53-39 with a 12-25 is plenty and I'm a crap climber, but I'm not one to sit there spinning merrily up climbs, I'd rather drop my cadence a bit on climbs.

To be honest I can't myself getting a compact for a "road bike" again. I think I'm going to stick to doubles, with perhaps the winter bike with a triple.

However I reckon a compact with 46-36 on a C-X bike would be ideal :P

chriskempton

markos1963 wrote:

I have a compact on my best bike and whilst I don't mind it I finds its not perfect, the jump from big to small ring and visa versa is too big in my opinion. You have to go up or down at least 2 sprockets at the rear prior to changing and I find that irritating. My other bike has a classic 53/42 double and the changes are far smoother and cadence friendly. I run a 7 speed 14-28 block on it and I can get up all the hills around here. I would say the best combination would be a 53/39 double and a 12/28 cassette(Sram do one and it runs fine on Shimano groupsets). You would then have the upper and lower end gear options covered.

Sounds like a 50/36 setup would be your ideal. Why not swap out that 34? I find the same issue changing down from 50 to 34 you describe and find the 36 much better. You don't need to double shift half as much.

Hudster

'Compact' just means that the bcd is smaller than a 'standard double'. So the lowest chainring you can get on a standard is a 38, where as you can go 34 on a compact. However, if you find 34 too small, there is nothing stopping you from chaining it. I have a compact and I run 50/36 and like this combination as I rarely find any need to have anything higher than 50. However, if I was more powerful then I could run something like 52/38.
Yes, you can lower your gears for the hills by chaining to a 27 cassette, but you get bigger gaps between the gears, which is annoying especially when riding in a group.

For me, the point of a compact is you get options, so you chose your chainrings and cassette according to what you want at the time.

Bengdogg

Hudster wrote:

' I have a compact and I run 50/36 and like this combination as I rarely find any need to have anything higher than 50. However, if I was more powerful then I could run something like 52/38

This is a pretty good idea imo, I think I may move to a 36 a the front as I get the double shifting issues too the route i ride locally doesent require me to use the small chainring I just shift down to it when coming to junctions and roundabouts for acceleration if i have to stop

markos1963

chriskempton wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I have a compact on my best bike and whilst I don't mind it I finds its not perfect, the jump from big to small ring and visa versa is too big in my opinion. You have to go up or down at least 2 sprockets at the rear prior to changing and I find that irritating. My other bike has a classic 53/42 double and the changes are far smoother and cadence friendly. I run a 7 speed 14-28 block on it and I can get up all the hills around here. I would say the best combination would be a 53/39 double and a 12/28 cassette(Sram do one and it runs fine on Shimano groupsets). You would then have the upper and lower end gear options covered.

Sounds like a 50/36 setup would be your ideal. Why not swap out that 34? I find the same issue changing down from 50 to 34 you describe and find the 36 much better. You don't need to double shift half as much.

Yes, already got one, I just get lazy about swapping them according to ride conditions.