Compact vs. Standard

AllTheGear

You actually read all 9 pages of this?

chriskempton

Psssssssst!!

Giantsasquatch is a troll. He started off writing in the style of a non-English speaker struggling with the language and grammar, but has gradually lapsed into far better syntax, and even used the phrase "slag me off" by page 6, which you'd only say if you're a 'true Brit'.

giantsasquatch

a_n_t wrote:

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?

Is that a trick question because you not declared what chainring your using? :roll:

But let's say for arguments sake it's easier on the 12-27 whatever you have. A 12-27 might be easier up the hills but if you been cycling several months past the basic beginner stage then 12-27 would soon be wasted if you take your cycling serious enough, and you soon be wishing you had the 11-25 with the smoother transition of blissfull gear changes . And let's not forget the extra top end for the flats. You lose but i lend you my 11-25. But then you got to have an open mind so i don't think it do you no good.

But then again if you already have a 11-23 then you at a good level of fitness and you could power up the hills. 8) Easier on the legs or easier on the fitness.

giantsasquatch

chriskempton wrote:

He started off writing in the style of a non-English speaker struggling with the language and grammar.

Am i a foreigner now? I kind of felt that from the beginning, no worries. Hard to impress against these dyed in the wool types.

Anyways at least the OP is sorted. What say you?

All i say is those with standards are crap on the hills! So that makes them more wasted for the flats.

Compact - The smarter way to train.

giantsasquatch

DVV wrote:

giantsasquatch, can you explain or define the law of averages to me? I often hear people use this phrase but do not know what it means.

The theory of probability becomes of enhanced value to gamblers when it is used with the law of large numbers. The law of large numbers states that:

“If the probability of a given outcome to an event is P and the event is repeated N times, then the larger N becomes, so the likelihood increases that the closer, in proportion, will be the occurrence of the given outcome to N*P.”

For example:-

If the probability of throwing a double-6 with two dice is 1/36, then the more times we throw the dice, the closer, in proportion, will be the number of double-6s thrown to of the total number of throws. This is, of course, what in everyday language is known as the law of averages. The overlooking of the vital words 'in proportion' in the above definition leads to much misunderstanding among gamblers. The 'gambler's fallacy' lies in the idea that “In the long run” chances will even out. Thus if a coin has been spun 100 times, and has landed 60 times head uppermost and 40 times tails, many gamblers will state that tails are now due for a run to get even. There are fancy names for this belief. The theory is called the maturity of chances, and the expected run of tails is known as a 'corrective', which will bring the total of tails eventually equal to the total of heads. The belief is that the 'law' of averages really is a law which states that in the longest of long runs the totals of both heads and tails will eventually become equal.

In fact, the opposite is really the case. As the number of tosses gets larger, the probability is that the percentage of heads or tails thrown gets nearer to 50%, but that the difference between the actual number of heads or tails thrown and the number representing 50% gets larger.

Let us return to our example of 60 heads and 40 tails in 100 spins, and imagine that the next 100 spins result in 56 heads and 44 tails. The 'corrective' has set in, as the percentage of heads has now dropped from 60 per cent to 58 per cent. But there are now 32 more heads than tails, where there were only 20 before. The 'law of averages' follower who backed tails is 12 more tosses to the bad. If the third hundred tosses result in 50 heads and 50 tails, the 'corrective' is still proceeding, as there are now 166 heads in 300 tosses, down to 55-33 per cent, but the tails backer is still 32 tosses behind.

Put another way, we would not be too surprised if after 100 tosses there were 60 per cent heads. We would be astonished if after a million tosses there were still 60 per cent heads, as we would expect the deviation from 50 per cent to be much smaller. Similarly, after 100 tosses, we are not too surprised that the difference between heads and tails is 20. After a million tosses we would be very surprised to find that the difference was not very much larger than 20.

A chance event is uninfluenced by the events which have gone before. If a true die has not shown 6 for 30 throws, the probability of a 6 is still 1/6 on the 31st throw. One wonders if this simple idea offends some human instinct, because it is not difficult to find gambling experts who will agree with all the above remarks, and will express them themselves in books and articles, only to advocate elsewhere the principle of 'stepping in when a corrective is due'.

It is interesting that despite significant statistical evidence and proof of all of the above people will go to extreme lengths to fulfill there belief in the fact that a corrective is due. The number 53 in an Italian lottery had failed to appear for some time and this lead to an obsession with the public to bet ever larger amounts on the number. People staked so much on this corrective that the failure of the number 53 to occur for two years was blamed for several deaths and bankruptcies. It seems that a large number of human minds are just simply unable to cope with the often seemingly contradictory laws of probability. If only they had listened to their maths teacher. The full story is publish here.

An understanding of the law of the large numbers leads to a realisation that what appear to be fantastic improbabilities are not remarkable at all but, merely to be expected.

AllTheGear

You copied and pasted that from here: http://www.probabilitytheory.info/topic ... umbers.htm

amaferanga

I guess the clue is in the name.

But anyway, if a compact is better than a standard double then surely a triple with even lower bottom end and the same top end is better still?

Also, for a 34/25 set-up , the lowest gear equates to about 10mph at 90 rpm. Now I'd like to see a novice cyclist spin up Hardknott at 10mph....

Pross

Gear ratios are like golf clubs, you can only have a certain amount in your bag and always need the one you haven't got

If as one post says (no reason to doubt it) you can fit 'standard' 53 and 39 t chainrings to a compact 110 BCD chainset then that to me is a very good arguement for going down the compact route compared to some of the guff posted on here by another person (assuming a strap on front mech as I don't know how much adjustment you get with a fixed mech?).

AllTheGear

You can get 'standard' 53/39 chainrings that fit a 'compact' 110BCD crankset here: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=24152

They are expensive though, so I'd be very interested to hear if there is a cheaper set.

I only know about SRAM front mechs, but it's the same mech for standard and compact, even the braze on. There is a long groove in the bracket that allows the mech to slide up and down, and a choice of two screwholes in the mech, so there's quite a bit of vertical adjustment.

giantsasquatch

@AllTheGear

OF course i pasted it from there or similar website. So what!. You don't think i bother to type that out do you especially as it sounds to me they were being sarcastic asking what the law of averages means.. So i gave a right good explanation better than i could. If they wern't being sarcastic then i sorry but you can't blame me from the recent comments at the time.

DVV

@giantsasquatch

I was genuinely intrigued as I have never learnt what the law of averages 'is'. The only explanatin I found was Wikipedia:

...as invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur...

skinson

So...............................Compact os standard double then? :twisted:
Dave

inseine

Please stop

dantheman213

Read to Page 6 and just had to stop. I'm now slightly concerned the training I do is rubbish, and I don't have a very strong heart.

Pross

dantheman213 wrote:

Read to Page 6 and just had to stop. I'm now slightly concerned the training I do is rubbish, and I don't have a very strong heart.

As long as you are riding a compact you'll be winning the Tour in a year or two

giantsasquatch

53/39 chainrings with 12/25 cassette and you may be surprised that, if two cyclists are spinning at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm), the compact rider(50/34 11/23) whizzes by at 28.4 miles per hour while the standard-geared guy falls behind at 27.8 miles per hour.

:P

giantsasquatch

The compact geared rider gets a second advantage. When climbing in the 23-tooth cog, he or she climbs at 9.2 miles an hour, slightly slower, easier pace while the standard-gearing rider can't go any slower than 9.8 miles an hour to maintain 80 rpm with a larger, 25-tooth cog. Put the 11 by 25-tooth cassette on the compact bike and its rider climbs even easier; at a leisurely 8.5 miles an hour at the same 80 rpm.

:P

giantsasquatch

chriskempton wrote:

even used the phrase "slag me off" by page 6, which you'd only say if you're a 'true Brit'.

Hilarious

amaferanga

I suggest compact man try cycling up Hardknott pass at a leisurely 8.5 mph.....

giantsasquatch

Pross wrote:

Gear ratios are like golf clubs

If you say so mate

giantsasquatch

amaferanga wrote:

I suggest compact man try cycling up Hardknott pass at a leisurely 8.5 mph.....

Not only can you get up Hardknot with a compact better, you be able to fly down it just as fast as a standard.

amaferanga

I hope you're a troll because if you're not you're a right numpty :roll:

soveda

giantsasquatch wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

I suggest compact man try cycling up Hardknott pass at a leisurely 8.5 mph.....

Not only can you get up Hardknot with a compact better, you be able to fly down it just as fast as a standard.

I'd like to see the legs of someone who can ride over Hardknott pass at 8.5 mph "leisurely"... ( Is that not the point you have missed?)

keef66

I find it hard to believe this has reached 11 pages. I have to keep popping back in to see what's going on.

I have to admit that Giant Muskrat is demonstrating remarkable stamina. Now is that the result of training on a standard double or a compact?? What size cassette?? Up hill, down hill or flat?? What kind of cadence??

I'm only joking. Please don't tell me!

giantsasquatch

keef66 wrote:

demonstrating remarkable stamina.!

Get on a compact and you will too.

giantsasquatch

53-39 Rings, 12-27 Cogs

High speed 30.42 MPH
Low speed 9.98 MPH

50-34 Rings, 11-23 Cogset

High speed 31.3 MPH
Low speed 10.18 MPH

Comments

12-27 is about the biggest (heaviest) cassette seen on Tri Bikes. Almost the same climbing can be achieved with the 11-23 cogs with a compact crankset with a higher top speed, closer gearing and reduced weight.

:P

giantsasquatch

soveda wrote:

I'd like to see the legs of someone who can ride over Hardknott pass at 8.5 mph "leisurely"... ( Is that not the point you have missed?)

You obsessed with Hardknott. The data is relevent at those speeds. It has nothing to do with your precious hill. The speeds are relative to each other. Of course for your precious hill the speeds would be different but the compact is king. Compact man is lighter so he go up the hill alot faster anyway thanks to his superior training of many years. So he has annihilated standard man.

Anyways don't forget to thank me when you win the Tour De France next year.

markos1963

giantsasquatch wrote:

soveda wrote:

I'd like to see the legs of someone who can ride over Hardknott pass at 8.5 mph "leisurely"... ( Is that not the point you have missed?)

You obsessed with Hardknott. The data is relevent at those speeds. It has nothing to do with your precious hill. The speeds are relative to each other. Of course for your precious hill the speeds would be different but the compact is king. Compact man is lighter so he go up the hill alot faster anyway thanks to his superior training of many years. So he has annihilated standard man.

Anyways don't forget to thank me when you win the Tour De France next year.

You'd better not let Contador or Schleck see this otherwise they'll switch to compact and poor Bradley will never keep with them in the TDF.

ride_whenever

giantsasquatch wrote:

53-39 Rings, 12-27 Cogs

High speed 30.42 MPH
Low speed 9.98 MPH

50-34 Rings, 11-23 Cogset

High speed 31.3 MPH
Low speed 10.18 MPH

comments:

high speed drops 0.88mph = 3% (smidge under)
low speed drops 0.2mph = 2% (smidge under)

you're saying that is hugely significant. I really doubt it when the speed range is a smidge under 300% in total anyway. Simply massively exaggerated claims.

giantsasquatch

Guys in the peloton shift along at a fantastic pace and 95% are just drafting.

Want to ride on your own or at the front and win? , then get a compact!