Compact vs. Standard

giantsasquatch

@amaferanga

Compact man goes past because you had to slow down and rest even though you going up faster. I exaggerated to make a point. Your performance is affected for the rest of the race. As compact man has trained at high cadence his body can tackle the hills with alot less ill effect and less affected for the rest of the way. The standard man can't recover all he can do is dig deep. He then messes up the rest of the weeks training. All the time compact man is getting slimmer and slimmer thanks to being in the fat burning zone.

Pross

giantsasquatch wrote:

@amaferanga

Compact man goes past because you had to slow down and rest even though you going up faster. I exaggerated to make a point. Your performance is affected for the rest of the race. As compact man has trained at high cadence his body can tackle the hills with alot less ill effect and less affected for the rest of the way. The standard man can't recover all he can do is dig deep. He then messes up the rest of the weeks training.

All the time compact man is getting slimmer and slimmer thanks to being in the fat burning zone.[/

quote]

I'm totally lost now. I thought the previous arguement was that a compact is better for a beginner who isn't fit but now it seems the assumption is that the person has been training hard at a high cadence?


Fat burning is relevant to your heart rate (the old level 1 to 4 system) - riding at a low intensity burns fat. Therefore if the two have gone up the hill at the same speed the person spinning may have had just as high a heart rate as the one pushing a higher gear so that's b****cks (or potentially so depending on how the INDIVIDUAL's body reacts). Of course if both are riding at the same cadence then the one in the lower gear is riding at a lower intensity but he's going to have to put more effort in on the descent in order to catch back up

giantsasquatch

ride_whenever wrote:

The point i initially tried to make is that they are not universally better for people.

Agreed. But If you want to take it real serious and are healthy then compact's the better way to train. You not just getting fit as such. Your training to radically change your VO2 max and muscle composition. Means as a beginner you won't have to radically change your training later on.

redddraggon

AllTheGear wrote:

giantsasquatch wrote:

Pross wrote:

Can you use a 36t on the same chainset as a 52t? I thought the minimum with a 52 or 53 was a 38t?

Yes. 52/36 is a non standard compact.

There may be people making buying decisions based onwhat is said here. I don't think you really know if that combination is usable. Normally the two rings are designed as a pair, so the clocking is synchronised at the change points. If you go from a 34/50 to 36/50 you would normally change the 50 ring as well, because it will come with the pins, ramps etc. set up to suit one particular inner ring.

That combination is perfectly useable. Adam Hansen (of Columbia-HTC) actually 53-36, and one can't say he doesn't know his stuff.

AllTheGear

redddraggon wrote:

Adam Hansen (of Columbia-HTC) actually 53-36

Do you know which rings they are and if I could buy some? The other problem is that 53 rings are usualy 'standard' and have a BCD of 130 and 36 would be 'compact' with 110 BCD.

redddraggon

AllTheGear wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Adam Hansen (of Columbia-HTC) actually 53-36

Do you know which rings they are and if I could buy some? The other problem is that 53 rings are usualy 'standard' and have a BCD of 130 and 36 would be 'compact' with 110 BCD.

He uses a 110mm 36 and a 130mm 53

Dura Ace SRMs have both a 110mm BCD inner ring and 130mm BCD outer ring, alas it'll cost you more than £1500 to get one of those.

AllTheGear

Thanks - I think I might just stick with my 50/34 then!

giantsasquatch

amaferanga wrote:

you're saying that poeple will actually ride faster with a compact. stressed.

I will simplify to avoid confusion.

Once you have trained your body to ride at a higher cadence, you can match the speed of a man(woman) on a bigger ring. You both going the same speed but compact man is using less muscle energy as it less pedal effort. It's more demanding on the heart and lungs but he trained to cope with it. We are not talking super easy gears but gears you can pedal comfortably easy in at 85-120RPM.

You will notice once a man has used all his fast twitch fibres, how easily they crumble. Compact man hasen't used them. He got them in reserve to use whenever. He developed his aerobic capacity better by pedalling at a higher cadence. In all studies the one factor that makes a great cyclist is developing slow twitch fibres better. Not to mention big lungs, heart and muscle composition. Concentrate on slow twitch and you won't go wrong and at the same time you increasing your VO2 max which plays a significant part in cycling. Once you used up your muscles there's nowhere to go apart from muscle damage and rest. Avoid that build the bigger engine and you progress alot faster.

There is evidence to suggest training slow twitch fibres more, faster twitch fibres get recruited more for slow twitch but that is not proven.

Compacts cranksets suit beginners because they are unfit cyclists and the smaller chainrings that are fitted lets them get up hills easier, without have to walk up, they can keep progressing there fitness at a steady rate. You cannot fit a small chainring to a standard crankset only fit bigger cassettes to make it easier.

Steve_b77

SO from what I can gather.

1 - If you live in a hilly area and/or are not the fittest rider go for something with lower gears to make life a bit easier.

2 - If you live in a flatter area and/or are fitter, go for somthing with higher gears 'cos you won't need the low gears a compact can offer.

3 - giants' is indeed a sports medicine correspondant/pro trainer and we should all respect that

4 - you're going to die if you eat crap, smoke, drink to much and do no or way too much exercise.

5 - pro atheletes are erm' $hit hot at the sport they do

In conclusion, pick gears that enable you to ride at a tempo that suits your body and ability.

One question though, what lenght crank arms should I use on my compact/double/tripple.

giantsasquatch

Pross wrote:

I'm totally lost now. I thought the previous arguement was that a compact is better for a beginner who isn't fit but now it seems the assumption is that the person has been training hard at a high cadence?


Fat burning is relevant to your heart rate (the old level 1 to 4 system) - riding at a low intensity burns fat. Therefore if the two have gone up the hill at the same speed the person spinning may have had just as high a heart rate as the one pushing a higher gear so that's b****cks (or potentially so depending on how the INDIVIDUAL's body reacts). Of course if both are riding at the same cadence then the one in the lower gear is riding at a lower intensity but he's going to have to put more effort in on the descent in order to catch back up.:

Compact better for both beginner and one who uses high cadence. You could win the Tour De France on a compact. it all depends on your ability and training style.

Riding at a low intensity burns fat during the exercise but once you stop thats the end of the fat burning. High intensity burns the most fat as you keep burning fat long after you stopped exercising so it burns the most fat overall at the end of the day.

The ride with the most developed aerobic system will have a lower heart rate but can cope better with the higher heartrate. He puts in more pedalling effort but that is not more muscle effort.

giantsasquatch

Steve_b77 wrote:

SO from what I can gather.

1 - If you live in a hilly area and/or are not the fittest rider go for something with lower gears to make life a bit easier.

.

Yes but if you go too low you just having gears that you don't use. Best to get abit fitter and have more top end but still able to spin uphill. The ratio i recommended is so you has smooth gear changes and not wasted gears and you got gears for uphill, downhill and on the flat and can go as fast as you want. It's like the best ideal for everything for far into the future. Those with standards tend to swap chainrings to suit the conditions.

The pros are using big second inner rings, they can spin on the second ring for when it's needed. But we not all pro's are we.

giantsasquatch

Steve_b77 wrote:

One question though, what lenght crank arms should I use on my compact/double/tripple.

There is a few formulas like height but in studies it turns out it doesn't hold water, and everybody is different. It all comes down to feel and trying out. It's not set in concrete.

crank length has no effect on leverage, it just has to do with the range of motion of the knee and hip joints. Too long cranks cause excessive knee flex, and can cause pain/injury if it causes your knee to flex more than it is used to.

One formula.

inseam < 29 inches - 165 mm crank
inseam 29 - 32 inches - 170 mm crank
inseam 32 - 34 inches - 172.5 mm crank
inseam > 34 inches - 175 mm crank

Here's another to do with height.

160 to 165cm 150mm
166 to 170cm 155mm
172 to 175cm 160mm
175 to 178cm 162.5mm
179 to 181cm 165mm
182 to 183cm 167.5mm
183 to 186cm 170mm to 172.5mm
187 to 190cm 175mm to 177.5mm
191 to 194cm 180mm
194cm plus 185mm

amaferanga

giantsasquatch wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

you're saying that poeple will actually ride faster with a compact. stressed.

I will simplify to avoid confusion.

Once you have trained your body to ride at a higher cadence, you can match the speed of a man(woman) on a bigger ring. You both going the same speed but compact man is using less muscle energy as it less pedal effort. It's more demanding on the heart and lungs but he trained to cope with it. We are not talking super easy gears but gears you can pedal comfortably easy in at 85-120RPM.

You will notice once a man has used all his fast twitch fibres, how easily they crumble. Compact man hasen't used them. He got them in reserve to use whenever. He developed his aerobic capacity better by pedalling at a higher cadence. In all studies the one factor that makes a great cyclist is developing slow twitch fibres better. Not to mention big lungs, heart and muscle composition. Concentrate on slow twitch and you won't go wrong and at the same time you increasing your VO2 max which plays a significant part in cycling. Once you used up your muscles there's nowhere to go apart from muscle damage and rest. Avoid that build the bigger engine and you progress alot faster.

There is evidence to suggest training slow twitch fibres more, faster twitch fibres get recruited more for slow twitch but that is not proven.

Compacts cranksets suit beginners because they are unfit cyclists and the smaller chainrings that are fitted lets them get up hills easier, without have to walk up, they can keep progressing there fitness at a steady rate. You cannot fit a small chainring to a standard crankset only fit bigger cassettes to make it easier.

Please do not modify my posts and then attribute them to me.

You really don't get it do you. The simple fact is that a compact or a standard double allow you to cycle at pretty much the same cadence probably 99% of the time - its only when it gets really steep that you may end up pedalling at a slightly lower cadence with the standard double. But we're not talking about a difference of 40 or 50 rpm so these massive advantages you talk about for compact man are just nonsense.

Btw, you do know that a bottom gear of 36/25 set-up is pretty much the same as that of 39/27 (37.8" vs 38" for a 700x23 tyre)? So if standard double man gets a 12-28 cassette then he actually has a lower gear than compact man. So what was your point?

FOAD

giantsasquatch wrote:

Here's another to do with height.

60 to 65cm 150mm
66 to 70cm 155mm
72 to 75cm 160mm
75 to 78cm 162.5mm
79 to 81cm 165mm
82 to 83cm 167.5mm
83 to 86cm 170mm to 172.5mm
87 to 90cm 175mm to 177.5mm
91 to 94cm 180mm
94cm plus 185mm

When I shrink from 190cm to 90cm I will at least have the right crank length then? (or did you not quite get it right?)

As well as losing everyone else with contradiction after contradiction, I suspect you have lost yourself and what your point was some time ago in this discussion.

I do love the way you elude to "evidence suggests" and then say "but there is no proof" in the same sentence though, that one was awesome.

You like compacts clearly and I think to the OP just pointing out that he might consider 50/36 or whatever it is you were advocating (I can't remember or be bothered to retrace through the BS) and left it there then it may have been useful.

Unfortunately by carrying on as you have I doubt anyone will take you seriously for as long as memory serves. Obviously the best course of action now would be for you to hush, and maybe change your username and start over.

I do however suspect that you will now post another six replies to yourself trying to untie the knots you are already in.

Good luck whichever way you go. :?

FOAD

amaferanga wrote:

So what was your point?

That's harsh, asking a question he has no idea about!

giantsasquatch

amaferanga wrote:

giantsasquatch wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

you're saying that poeple will actually ride faster with a compact. stressed.

I will simplify to avoid confusion.

Once you have trained your body to ride at a higher cadence, you can match the speed of a man(woman) on a bigger ring. You both going the same speed but compact man is using less muscle energy as it less pedal effort. It's more demanding on the heart and lungs but he trained to cope with it. We are not talking super easy gears but gears you can pedal comfortably easy in at 85-120RPM.

You will notice once a man has used all his fast twitch fibres, how easily they crumble. Compact man hasen't used them. He got them in reserve to use whenever. He developed his aerobic capacity better by pedalling at a higher cadence. In all studies the one factor that makes a great cyclist is developing slow twitch fibres better. Not to mention big lungs, heart and muscle composition. Concentrate on slow twitch and you won't go wrong and at the same time you increasing your VO2 max which plays a significant part in cycling. Once you used up your muscles there's nowhere to go apart from muscle damage and rest. Avoid that build the bigger engine and you progress alot faster.

There is evidence to suggest training slow twitch fibres more, faster twitch fibres get recruited more for slow twitch but that is not proven.

Compacts cranksets suit beginners because they are unfit cyclists and the smaller chainrings that are fitted lets them get up hills easier, without have to walk up, they can keep progressing there fitness at a steady rate. You cannot fit a small chainring to a standard crankset only fit bigger cassettes to make it easier.

Please do not modify my posts and then attribute them to me.

You really don't get it do you. The simple fact is that a compact or a standard double allow you to cycle at pretty much the same cadence probably 99% of the time - its only when it gets really steep that you may end up pedalling at a slightly lower cadence with the standard double. But we're not talking about a difference of 40 or 50 rpm so these massive advantages you talk about for compact man are just nonsense.

Btw, you do know that a bottom gear of 36/25 set-up is pretty much the same as that of 39/27 (37.8" vs 38" for a 700x23 tyre)? So if standard double man gets a 12-28 cassette then he actually has a lower gear than compact man. So what was your point?

Of course i get it. It's not rocket science. I explain my view. That is what you quoted on page 8. 1/3 down.

In your own words:

its only when it gets really steep that you may end up pedalling at a slightly lower cadence with the standard double

Exactly. You can't push a good cadence with a double up a steep hill. That is why i suggest the compact, so you can cover every situation up the hill as well, keeping up a good cadence to improve further. Just a few RPM saving can make all the difference from being tired so it is not nonsense.

You see thats my point you switch to a 12-28 as you suggest and then you have wider gear ratios than the 11-25 so you be worse off. I gave a great compromise. With yours you be even worse off in a race.

Please everyone, stop getting so defensive. This is a controversial subject because everybody has different styles and training. Standards are not the be all and end all as i have explained.

FOAD

Limburger

Though I would wade in at this point having just junked the compact on my bike in favour of a standard (They are both 'doubles' remember).

NOW. Spinning allows you to produce more watts (if you dont know what a watt is stop reading). A watt is a measure of energy.
If I can out-put more energy per unit time then I will ride faster. BUT> You are using more energy and more of your muscles to do so. It is a massive cardiac activity.

Think about it rationally without some made up 'science'.
Have you ever been to a spinning class? Ever felt like you were going to explode?
Ever wondered why?

Because, despite pushing next to no resistance you are consuming energy at a massive rate.

Ever seen a churning class? NO. because that would not be anywhere near as effective a cardiac exercise.

Anyone know any physics. Ill explain another way.

Bike and rider weigh a fixed amount. Hill is a fixed height. road is a fixed length.
The amount of energy required to raise said bike and rider to the summit of said hill is identical whether riding a compact, standard, triple, fixed or a bloody engine.

Physiology my dictate which a rider prefers but they still expend the same amount of energy (apart from the guy on the Fireblade).

Now. I have legs like tree trunks. My maximum cadence is not as high as some other people. My legs don't like to spin up hills. I can however leg press 240kg. Churning up a hill is no problem. I produce more force than some skinny spinner but I produce it more slowly. Therefore the power could very well be the same.

In conclusion. grass is green, the sky is blue and you are free to have whatever chainset takes your fancy.

People with bad knees should probably ride smaller cranks and gears.

If you are unfortunate enough to have a heart attack riding your bike it was always going to happen. Don't blame the bike.

giantsasquatch

FOAD wrote:

When I shrink from 190cm to 90cm I will at least have the right crank length then? (or did you not quite get it right?)

I do love the way you elude to "evidence suggests" and then say "but there is no proof" in the same sentence though, that one was awesome.

Because SIMPLY there is no fixed hard exact formula for crank length thats why Mr. Dumbo. So what you want me to do? I gave a couple of formulas and told it how it really is and to try out different ones. You condemn me for that. Amazing.

I said evidence suggests on fast twitch because it isnt proven that is fact. No scientist knows for sure. I use just one subject yet you generalize on everything i said. Another amazing feat.

FOAD

giantsasquatch wrote:

FOAD wrote:

When I shrink from 190cm to 90cm I will at least have the right crank length then? (or did you not quite get it right?)

I do love the way you elude to "evidence suggests" and then say "but there is no proof" in the same sentence though, that one was awesome.

Because SIMPLY there is no fixed hard exact formula for crank length thats why Mr. Dumbo. So what you want me to do? I gave a couple of formulas and told it how it really is and to try out different ones. You condemn me for that. Amazing.

I said evidence suggests on fast twitch because it isnt proven that is fact. No scientist knows for sure. I use one subject yet you generalize on everything i said. Another amazing feat.

First "MR Dumbo" as you like to say, you can't even get the table right. Was it for midgets? (that was my point, I was taking the piss but you missed it). And why would you produce tables and then say they are bollocks...pointless.

Second, evidence and proof are pretty much the same thing if there is enough of it, however suggestion (which is what you do, with no actual reference to anything credible) isn't the same as proof. Go figure.

An due to your inability to speak my native language correctly, often what you are saying probably comes across wrong anyway.

inseine

You can get 'standard' size rings to go on a compact spider (39-53 for example) but you can't put a 34, for example, on a standard.

micken

Limburger wrote:

Therefore the power could very well be the same.

Agree with your reasoning and if all things you quote remain consistent and both cyclists climb the hill in the same time then their power output should be equal.

Enjoy climbing hills, whichever way you do it.

giantsasquatch

If you studied then you know there's no proof on that subject it debatable. I haven't done that on other matters. So fairs fair. At least i gave help and more than one option so they can make up there own mind.

Sorry I missed off the 1's that's all :P Corrected.

160 to 165cm 150mm
166 to 170cm 155mm
172 to 175cm 160mm
175 to 178cm 162.5mm
179 to 181cm 165mm
182 to 183cm 167.5mm
183 to 186cm 170mm to 172.5mm
187 to 190cm 175mm to 177.5mm
191 to 194cm 180mm
194cm plus 185mm

AllTheGear

I had to extrapolate a bit, but it looks like I need to upgrade to 380mm cranks. While that may make my riding style look like Bez dancing in slow motion, at least it will prevent my imminent heart attack and I'll wave at the guy on a standard chainset as I pass.

giantsasquatch

I gave the common formulas out there. Complain to them not me. I say again there is no hard and fast rule. Goto the bike shop and try different ones. To some it doesn't even make a difference.

The idiots are winning.

AllTheGear

My suggestion about getting 380mm cranks wasn't serious. I apologise if that wasn't clear.

chriskempton

I'm 178cm and I should get 162.5mm cranks?

That's news to me. Your table's still in need of work.

giantsasquatch

Limburger wrote:

Think about it rationally without some made up 'science'.
Have you ever been to a spinning class? Ever felt like you were going to explode?
Ever wondered why?

Because, despite pushing next to no resistance you are consuming energy at a massive rate.

Because it fast slow fast slow and your HR never get used to one speed in time to recover for the next.

You not do high cadence at exploding rate of near to 100%HR like in those gym spinning classes. You doing it between 75-90% for good training. The ideal fat burning HR is 75% anything above is a plus for more fat burning aslong as it healthy for you to do it.

That is another fact by the way not pseudo science.

a_n_t

giantsasquatch wrote:

Do you need a lesson in gear inches? You obviously don't grasp the basics.

I think you're the one not grasping basics.

As I have already said, I HAVE A COMPACT, with a 11-23 cassette.

I could have a standard double with a 12-27 cassette.


Which would be easier up hills?

calvjones

Jesus. I thought Pro-Race got a bit gnarly with all the doping arguments, then I wander in here and read this :shock: