Compact chainsets????

Bozman

When did compact chainsets start to appear?

I put one on a bike last year because..... i've got more than one bike and i wanted to see if there was any difference to a standard 53/39 or .....maybe it's because i'm getting old and my knees are knackered or i was bored.

There seems to be post up on post about people not having enough gears/ratios, should i change to a triple or a compact, what size cassette should i use blah blah,
Did you get this many options 10, 20, 30 years ago because up until recently(4/5yrs) i thought that a 53/39 was my only option on a road bike and i've just got on with it, the more you push yourself the easier it gets.

Bobbinogs

Surely just writing "MTFU you young whipper snappers" would have been quicker?

Bozman

MTFU aside, when did compact chainsets start appearing on road bikes?

leyburnrunner

they appeared when the uk got more hilly (summink to do with global warming).

mikebikemike

No idea when but I'm glad they have.
I've just bought my first road bike after a decade mountain biking and went for a compact as it seems a really nice compromise between a touring triple and terminator style huge chainrings.
I would guess it became a good idea with 9 / 10 speed coming in allowing a nice range of gears with only a double chainring

Berk Bonebonce

Compact chainsets with 50 something chainrings are stupid. I mean, who churns round a 50 something chainring, unless they are very fit and in the racing category?

nmcgann

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

Compact chainsets with 50 something chainrings are stupid. I mean, who churns round a 50 something chainring, unless they are very fit and in the racing category?

I've got a 39/50 combination on my main 2 bikes precisely because the 50T ring CAN be churned round where a 53T is a bit too big to spend a lot of time on.

It is quite flat where I ride though. (Cambridge/North Essex)

desweller

nmcgann wrote:

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

Compact chainsets with 50 something chainrings are stupid. I mean, who churns round a 50 something chainring, unless they are very fit and in the racing category?

I've got a 39/50 combination on my main 2 bikes precisely because the 50T ring CAN be churned round where a 53T is a bit too big to spend a lot of time on.

It is quite flat where I ride though. (Cambridge/North Essex)

I think Berk means 50+, rather than 50 itself.

bompington

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

Compact chainsets with 50 something chainrings are stupid. I mean, who churns round a 50 something chainring, unless they are very fit and in the racing category?

I do.
I am not that young (46), not that fit (13+ stone) and live in a not so flat part of the country: but running a proper double (53/39) with an 11-28 cassette has got me up and over the quite hilly area round me on my regular commute for a while now, as well as hills like the Bealach na Ba, Glen Quaich, Glenshee, and Wrynose, not to mention round the Etape Caledonia a few times.
I can't see the problem with the big ring, my commute home takes me from sea level to over 200m - twice - and I don't ever drop to the 39. I'm not saying this as some kind of boast, it's more "if I can do this it can't be that big a deal".
I've just wound up getting a 13/26 cassette due to force of circumstances (last minute change before the Etape C, it was all the shop in Pitlochry had left) and so far I seem to be doing fine with that too - I reckon it's mostly psychological: I've managed to convince myself that the less gears I have the fitter I must be, and I just go out and pedal like it's true.

Is it really all in the mind, not the legs?

nmcgann

DesWeller wrote:

I think Berk means 50+, rather than 50 itself.

I don't think I've seen an off-the-shelf compact with bigger than 50T outer ring. It's not impossible though, the usual 34-50 jump between rings is usually the official front mech capacity limit, but a 36-52 would work.