Compact vs. Standard
Comments
-
ride_whenever wrote: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.
No, a slight small potato niggle of a difference. but all the difference in a race. Anyways that is just compared against one cassette. I just showing against a common cassette that's used.
People think compacts are only good for hills. There is no reason with the right training you can win regularly on the flat as well.0 -
Infamous wrote:Thread of the year imo.
I don't think a man who has never owned a track pump should be giving detailed training analysis on how to become a pro cyclist.
He's been riding a bike for probably a couple of months at the most and read an article about high cadences in cycling weekly.
They didn't have cheap trackpump years ago.. I don't see how asking whats a good quality trackpump and batteries takes anything away from knowing science, training. experience.
The advice in magazines is so basic. Hardly.0 -
ride_whenever wrote:That people can well use a standard perfectly safely with no loss of performance.
If that's the case, then why didn't one of the posters mention early on standards are equal to compacts?
That's because they not, and i am not alone in that knowledge.
Compact - Go Fast on all Terrain0 -
and for some riders you'll go faster with a standard over all terrain0
-
ride_whenever wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:There is more than 1 way to train.
You refuse to accept that different people need different thing and that people can well use a standard perfectly safely with no loss of performance.
Everybody has given there entitled opinion and advice and i am giving mine. People can make up there own mind and take what they want from whoever.
Those with good intelligence will understand and know compacts are superior. If they have potential, then they will do better to train with the non standard compact.0 -
ride_whenever wrote:and for some riders you'll go faster with a standard over all terrain
You might be faster up the hills, but you be resting those sorer muscles the next day. It means compact man is fresher and can train more due to faster recovery.
Compact - Unleash your true potential0 -
During a hill climb, fast-twitch cells lost almost 50 percent of their glycogen at 50 rpm and only 33 percent at 100 rpm.
:P0 -
Ultimately, the high pedaling rates also preserve greater amounts of glycogen in fast-twitch muscle fibers, leading to more explosive "kicks" to the finish line in closing moments of races.
:P0 -
If you changing from standard to compact. Then you have to shorten the chain. Do the usual big sprocket to big chainring measurement rule. If you just changing to a different cassette, then don't forget to measure the chain as well.0
-
What a crazy thread. I'm normally a sucker for threads about gearing, but I couldn't keep up with this one :roll:
I started out with a compact, but have gone to more conventional gearing on my various chainsets. I simply prefer the gear ranges on a 38/39/40 smaller ring and a 50/52/53 big ring. It helps that I live in a flat-ish area and have developed the leg strength to turn larger gears at a comfortable (for me) cadence.
Compacts have their place as a poseurs triple
for hilly areas, although I can't deny they do shift a little bit better than triples.
The "best cadence" discussion is pretty futile as it's so person-specific. I can only speak for my own experience which is that in 25 mile timetrials I produce the best average power overall with a cadence between 85 and 90rpm. This range is my instinctive balance between muscular strain, fatigue, heartrate and breathing. I train at higher and lower cadences too, but when I'm operating at my absolute limit I'll be in my usual range every time.
I commonly see people racing at +/-10rpm of my preferred cadence and there are a few that are even higher or lower. Interesting to speculate about, but it's futile to try and emulate someone else's optimum cadence.
Neil--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
LOL @ this thread
'giantwristwatch' you are a lord anyone that says different is a numpty as you've sucked everyone into 13 pages of top quality debate.
For what it's worth I prefer unreferenced quotes and I think it's far better to be an expert with no known credentials and think you would have ruined this thread a long time ago if you started advertising a thesis and 10 degrees (meow :P ). You would then have come across as being pretentious, which you clearly are not
Keep it up man0 -
I think the sasquatch may be a little tapped in the head and we should stop stoking the fire before someone finds him hanging in his bedroom.0 -
His first sentence on the thread...
...is incorrect, he doesn't even know how to measure BCD.giantsasquatch wrote:Standard double is 130mm wide which is from one bolt to the nearest bolt, the BCD diameter.0 -
Thread of the year. giantsasquatch has to be either a troll or mildly insane.0
-
FOAD wrote:
I think the sasquatch may be a little tapped in the head and we should stop stoking the fire before someone finds him hanging in his bedroom.
I wouldn't joke about it, this is the sixth post in a row without the benefit of the Gearing Guru's wisdom so something's obviously up.
Actually, I'm starting to think that the Guru may in fact be a random text generator and, judging from its interesting interpretation of the English language, not a very good one.
BTW GiantSas I ride a triple, does that mean I'm due to win the TdF or due a heart attack? Maybe both?0 -
Just a quick question (apologies if it’s been asked already)
To users of compacts: How did you manage only a few years ago when the only options where 53t or 52t & 42t or 39t & the biggest sprocket was a 23t?
It’s not that long ago when all we had was 8sp with the afore mentioned gear combo’s. There were no compacts at all.
I did the recent TOB ride & saw lots of riders with compacts & 27 or 28t………passed lots of them on the hills using a 39t-23t or 26t. They were certainly spinning fast but not really going forward very fast though.
In fact when I started training on the route I realised that my 42t was indeed too much for all the hills on the route so I changed to a 39t which is much better for lots of hills.
The 42t is still fine for flatter routes though.
Counter point:
Just had a short break in Paignton (Goodrington Sands) & I can see a compact being useful here as there are a lot of hills over 10%. The one to our site was 16% & if I lived there I’d have no hesitation in fitting a compact.
Conclusion:
It depends on where you live & your weight to whether a compact is the best gearing. On the TOB ride I noticed that a lot of people on compacts were, shall we say, a bit heavier than me at 11 stone. I suspect that heavier people viewed the compact as way of climbing better but in fact would benefit from losing weight more than anything else.0 -
Infamous wrote:His first sentence on the thread...
...is incorrect, he doesn't even know how to measure BCD.giantsasquatch wrote:Standard double is 130mm wide which is from one bolt to the nearest bolt, the BCD diameter.
No problem. You see in the case of 110mm and 130mm chainrings, you can easily tell the 2cm difference, so that is why i didn't give exact info.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:Infamous wrote:His first sentence on the thread...
...is incorrect, he doesn't even know how to measure BCD.giantsasquatch wrote:Standard double is 130mm wide which is from one bolt to the nearest bolt, the BCD diameter.
No problem. You see in the case of 110mm and 130mm chainrings, you can easily tell the 2cm difference, so that is why i didn't give exact info. The exact BCD measurement is the center of one hole to the other. This picture will explain everything.
That definitely ain't BCD0 -
Mozza1 wrote:I suspect that heavier people viewed the compact as way of climbing better but in fact would benefit from losing weight more than anything else.
LOL unfortunately it takes time to shift the lb's so guess a compact is a useful tool until it all comes off. Bit chiken and egg really.
To be honest I don't really need a compact but it came with the bike. I very rarely use the 34/25 (usually 34/17 does me for climbing) so am thinking of changing my cassette for an 11-23. However I do have a few 15% hills in my area and the 34/25 comes in very useful so am holding off till my legs get stronger.0 -
Oh yes it is.
Here's the CC
It measures 64.7 mm center-to-center. Multiplying this dimension by 1.7(5 bolt) gives you the BCD 110mm. Multiply by 1.4 for 4 bolt.
Here is a chart of Distance (x) BCD
5 hole chainrings
34.3mm 58mm
43.5mm 74mm
55.4mm 94mm
64.7mm 110mm ooo COMPACT 8)
71.5mm 122mm
76.4mm 130mm Sub Standard :evil:
79.5mm 135mm
84.6mm 144mm
4 hole chainrings
41.0mm 58mm
45.3mm 64mm
48.1mm 68mm
73.6mm 104mm
79.2mm 112mm
Compact Man and Sheldon Brown are not wrong.0 -
redddraggon wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:Infamous wrote:His first sentence on the thread...
...is incorrect, he doesn't even know how to measure BCD.giantsasquatch wrote:Standard double is 130mm wide which is from one bolt to the nearest bolt, the BCD diameter.
No problem. You see in the case of 110mm and 130mm chainrings, you can easily tell the 2cm difference, so that is why i didn't give exact info. The exact BCD measurement is the center of one hole to the other. This picture will explain everything.
That definitely ain't BCD
Jeeps man :shock:
I thought the BCD was the diameter of all bolt centres on the chainwheel, concentric with the chainwheel itself.
If BCD is as you've described sasquatch then my compact ain't that compact afterall 0 -
sqatch has just given the method of measuring them easily (far easier particularly for 5 bolt) than measuring BCD, which is bolt circle diameter, ie the diameter of the circle that goes through the center of all the bolt holes.0
-
It alot easier to measure in a straight line than around little circles. :P
I never would of guessed circle diameter is the diameter of a circle.
Practical advice too.0 -
0
-
Sure, I can quote sources from science papers etc. to backup anything. We just touched the surface and it all common sense.0
-
You appear to be a genius, would you be my coach? I am willing to pay handsomely for the privilege.0
-
giantsasquatch wrote:Sure, I can quote sources from science papers etc. to backup anything. We just touched the surface and it all common sense.
Something you seem to be lacking. You are also a perfect demonstration on how a tiny little bit of knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.More problems but still living....0 -
Mozza1 wrote:Just a quick question (apologies if it’s been asked already)
To users of compacts: How did you manage only a few years ago when the only options where 53t or 52t & 42t or 39t & the biggest sprocket was a 23t?
Easy, I only had a mountain bike a few years ago!
I have only been a roadie for a short time. As no-one else has chipped in yet I'll have a go: Perhaps the choice was double or triple?... and no idea ...
FCN: 30 -
My first "proper" road bike of 1989 came with a 13-26 freewheel. With a 42 tooth chainring that's a usefully low gear which was common then. It's a similar ratio to the 39/25 that's the lowest I've gone since.AllTheGear wrote:Mozza1 wrote:Just a quick question (apologies if it’s been asked already)
To users of compacts: How did you manage only a few years ago when the only options where 53t or 52t & 42t or 39t & the biggest sprocket was a 23t?
Easy, I only had a mountain bike a few years ago!
I have only been a roadie for a short time. As no-one else has chipped in yet I'll have a go: Perhaps the choice was double or triple?
I don't think 28 tooth sprockets were so rare then, either. MTB's were getting fashionable, and manufacturers were catering for their demands. I think triple cranksets took a bit longer to feature on road bikes, though, except for tourers.0 -
amaferanga wrote:Something you seem to be lacking. You are also a perfect demonstration on how a tiny little bit of knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Bahhh. Another ridiculous comment. How is the knowledge dangerous? I explained well how compact crankset is advantageous. It was me who warned of the dangers of too high a gear for older riders.
@Foad
Do us all a favour and yourself one, keep out of the thread as you clearly have no interest, except to make derogatory comments. Nobody wants to read your worthless contributions. Sounds like your the troll.
Who said that internet forum people? Yeah likely!0
