Do compacts make you soft?

mabbo

Just musing,
My best bike is a Giant Defy with a front 50/34 and rear 27/12 combo. The classic compact fitted to many new roadsters. For this winter I actually put my 20+ year old Giant Speeder back on the road. That is running with a front 52/39, rear 23/11. I am using it for my commuting, and my commute is hilly. One route has a mile of up, varying from 6% to 18% inclines. When I first got back on the old beast, I was dreading the hills. Especially as the bike is several kilo heavier than my newer one. However, over winter it has become less of an issue. So legs are not spinning as fast, but turning all the same, and getting me up the hills as quick. And now even doing some of the hills on the 52 front.

So................do compacts make you soft? Do they serve any purpose at all?

chrisaonabike

Depends if you get patellar tendonitis grinding rather than spinning. Sounds like you don't, so maybe if you're strong enough to just push harder with no ill-effects, they don't serve you any purpose.

No point in generalising, though. I expect there are plenty of people that wouldn't be able to tackle their favourite hills if you forced them to use a bigger gear. They may or may not get stronger using a compact, but for them, of course they serve a purpose.

You could apply the same argument to triples. For some they're good, others will find them no use.

AchillesLeftKnee

mabbo wrote:

Do they serve any purpose at all?

To further Chris' knee-related point, yes, I ride a compact to dramatically increase my chances of both being able to walk normally after a ride, and avoiding a knee replacement at some point in the future. This counts double with flashing neon knobs on in cold weather.

herb71

Other comments about knee issues aside, I think they do make you soft, yes!

I changed gearing recently from the lowest 39/23 I have always used to 34/26. At first I thought it was great, and the biggest hills round here, which I had to work hard up in the lowest gear before, I could spin up, and still have a spare gear.

However after riding my new gearing for a couple of months, I find I no longer have a spare gear. I think the higher gearing encouraged me to work harder and build leg strength. I think I need more bikes. I should train on standard gearing, only converting to compact for hilly events.

Extralight

I agree with Herb - if you switch to easier gearing, you'll soon find yourself depending on gears that you previously managed without. However, age or susceptibility to injury are good reasons to reduce the strain on your knees. Everyone seems to advocate spinning rather than grinding, so presumably it's no bad thing to ride lower gears, but I like Herb, have found that on hills that once challenged me to resort to my previous 'bail-out' gear of 39 x 25, I am now dependent on my new lowest gear of 39 - 29. Unfortunately, I'm not riding them at the same speed. In my mind, I wonder if giving in to lower gears is partly to blame, but I am getting older, so maybe I should expect to be getting slower.

Barteos

Most of people could ride 53-39 11-23 gears fine just to prove the point but cycling fast is about power and economy not strength.

fossyant

What's a compact ? Heh heh.

imposter2.0

Yeah, compacts are great for spinning. For example, on a standard chainset, 52/18 @ 90rpm gives me about 21mph, while 50/17 @ 90rpm on a compact gives me....um....about 21mph! Who knew..??!!

Can someone explain to me what difference does it make if I'm on a compact or not?

jibberjim

Imposter wrote:

52/18 @ 90rpm gives me about 21mph, while 50/17 @90rpm gives me.....about 21mph. Can someone explain to me what difference does it make if I'm on a compact or not?

It's for unfit people who cannot get up hills that fast and it's only relevant when they're using their lowest gears. They believe that grinding slowly with pain in the legs is "better" than riding slowly without pain in the legs. They equate struggling with improvement, despite there being no objective reason at all.

It is possible that for an individual they do ride up easier with the more appropriate gearing for a hill, and for those it's possible that the added training benefit of the extra effort forced upon them by the hill makes a difference. However if you actually try to ride up hills as fast as you can, then the more appropriate gearing will get you up faster, and provide better training benefit for every situation other than having inappropriate gearing.

Get appropriate gearing, grinding slowly is not good training for anything other than grinding slowly...

daviesee

I always used to grind out a big gear.
I always used to burn out after @50 miles. :oops:
I use a compact 50/34 & 11-23 generally, 11-25 for "real" hills.
I find the lower gearing aids endurance. Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

imposter2.0

daviesee wrote:

Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

great - another one who can't differentiate between strength and endurance...

AchillesLeftKnee

Imposter wrote:

Yeah, compacts are great for spinning. For example, on a standard chainset, 52/18 @ 90rpm gives me about 21mph, while 50/17 @ 90rpm on a compact gives me....um....about 21mph! Who knew..??!!

Can someone explain to me what difference does it make if I'm on a compact or not?

Are you naturally full of crap, or does it take practice?

daviesee

Imposter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

great - another one who can't differentiate between strength and endurance...

Great - Another one who can't read a whole post in context.....
I did say that your legs burn out by grinding a big gear over a long distance - that needs endurance.
Having strength to power up short hills makes a long ride easier.

morstar

daviesee wrote:

I always used to grind out a big gear.
I always used to burn out after @50 miles. :oops:
I use a compact 50/34 & 11-23 generally, 11-25 for "real" hills.
I find the lower gearing aids endurance. Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

This^
Can and indeed have got up some ridiculous climbs on 42-18 gearing. Yes, really! Problem is, you burn out much more quickly and can't keep going up hills all day like you can with a compact.

jibberjim

daviesee wrote:

Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

Probably not, inappropriate gearing almost always leads to lower training benefit due to the reduced power output.

daviesee

jibberjim wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

Probably not, inappropriate gearing almost always leads to lower training benefit due to the reduced power output.

Please explain?
I think if you do some training in a big gear specifically to build muscle then that must help in future rides. No?

imposter2.0

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Yeah, compacts are great for spinning. For example, on a standard chainset, 52/18 @ 90rpm gives me about 21mph, while 50/17 @ 90rpm on a compact gives me....um....about 21mph! Who knew..??!!

Can someone explain to me what difference does it make if I'm on a compact or not?

Are you naturally full of crap, or does it take practice?

sorry fella - which bit are you disputing?

imposter2.0

daviesee wrote:

I think if you do some training in a big gear specifically to build muscle then that must help in future rides. No?

why do you think that 'building muscle' is a good thing??

chrisaonabike

Imposter wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Yeah, compacts are great for spinning. For example, on a standard chainset, 52/18 @ 90rpm gives me about 21mph, while 50/17 @ 90rpm on a compact gives me....um....about 21mph! Who knew..??!!

Can someone explain to me what difference does it make if I'm on a compact or not?

Are you naturally full of crap, or does it take practice?

sorry fella - which bit are you disputing?

I think the point is that by picking a gear roughly in the middle of the range for a standard double, and pointing out that more or less the same gear exists (also in the middle of the range) for a compact, you prove nothing at all.

It's irrelevant, since the main benefit of one over the other is at the extremes of the gearing. You get a lower lowest gear with a compact, and a higher highest gear with a standard, assuming the same cassette toothcount.

So obviously (well it seems obvious to this noob), if you're strong and/or don't ride hills much, and want a higher top speed, go for a standard. Whereas if you're not as strong, and/or struggle on the hills, and aren't so bothered about top speed, go for a compact.

As I said earlier, generalisation is just silly, since people are different.

imposter2.0

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

I think the point is that by picking a gear roughly in the middle of the range for a standard double, and pointing out that more or less the same gear exists (also in the middle of the range) for a compact, you prove nothing at all.

It's irrelevant, since the main benefit of one over the other is at the extremes of the gearing. You get a lower lowest gear with a compact, and a higher highest gear with a standard, assuming the same cassette toothcount.

So obviously (well it seems obvious to this noob), if you're strong and/or don't ride hills much, and want a higher top speed, go for a standard. Whereas if you're not as strong, and/or struggle on the hills, and aren't so bothered about top speed, go for a compact.

As I said earlier, generalisation is just silly, since people are different.

The point I'm making is that cadence is largely independent of chainset and is more a product of gear choice and personal preference. So simply saying that a compact will let you 'spin more' is utter nonsense. The only practical difference is at the lower end of the cassette where a 34 inner might give you a few more ratios for hills - but a monkey could have told you that.

For the record, my winter bike has 50/36 and 12-25 and my race bike as 52/38 and 12-23. I can ride at the same cadence on both, if needs be.

daviesee

Imposter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I think if you do some training in a big gear specifically to build muscle then that must help in future rides. No?

why do you think that 'building muscle' is a good thing??

Ever tried going up a 20% without muscles?
If you are a lightweight it may be possible to spin up but it is impossible otherwise.

imposter2.0

daviesee wrote:

Imposter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I think if you do some training in a big gear specifically to build muscle then that must help in future rides. No?

why do you think that 'building muscle' is a good thing??

Ever tried going up a 20% without muscles?
If you are a lightweight it may be possible to spin up but it is impossible otherwise.

Without muscles we would effectively become immobile, obviously. Nobody said you don't need muscles. But you said that 'building muscles' and 'gaining strength' is a good thing - and I asked you why you thought that. Because it goes against conventional wisdom as far as cycle-related training is concerned.

jibberjim

daviesee wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Higher gearing in training will build muscles to help with that endurance though. :P

Probably not, inappropriate gearing almost always leads to lower training benefit due to the reduced power output.

I think if you do some training in a big gear specifically to build muscle then that must help in future rides. No?

Because it doesn't "build muscle" - even in a highly inappropriate gear that has you down at 40rpm you're still putting out less force than when you run up stairs, so it does a very poor job of building muscle. And of course the work your muscle does climbing isn't actually independant of cadence, so climbing it at 100rpm and 50rpm will require much the same power (minor differences with the faster one requiring more power of course.) So why do you believe the training benefit is better to do it slower at a lower power is better than faster at a higher power?

chrisaonabike

Imposter wrote:

The point I'm making is that cadence is largely independent of chainset and is more a product of gear choice and personal preference.

No one is disputing this AFAICS - at least not the "largely".

The only practical difference is at the lower end of the cassette where a 34 inner might give you a few more ratios for hills

Exactly. And at the lower end of the cassette, you can therefore spin more with a compact. That is, maintain a higher cadence at the same speed, or a lower speed.

I didn't think anyone was trying to argue that there's a material difference in the middle of the gear range whether you have a standard, a compact, or even a triple for that matter.

daviesee

jibberjim wrote:

So why do you believe the training benefit is better to do it slower at a lower power is better than faster at a higher power?

I don't understand. To maintain the same speed the lower cadence will require a higher gear and more power.
Using your muscles will build them. The stronger you are, the higher gear you can push when required.

An example. In Stage 10 of the Vuelta, Chris Froome's average power output was 406W. Do you think he manages that simply by spinning his legs quickly?

imposter2.0

daviesee wrote:

I don't understand. To maintain the same speed the lower cadence will require a higher gear and more power.
Using your muscles will build them. The stronger you are, the higher gear you can push when required.

An example. In Stage 10 of the Vuelta, Chris Froome's average power output was 406W. Do you think he manages that simply by spinning his legs quickly?

No - he manages that by building his sustainable power and his aerobic capacity. Anyway, if you've ever looked at Froome's legs, you will understand that he is not exactly a walking advert for 'leg strength'.

Let's say you might weigh 70kg. On the basis that most of us already have the ability to lift our own bodyweight with each leg (walking up the stairs does precisely that) - and on the basis that a typical mountain stage in the TdF would see the riders pushing a maximum of around 25kg through each pedal stroke - tell me why increasing your leg strength would help?

25kg is a relatively low force compared to a bodyweight of 70kg. The trick is not to increase strength, the trick is to increase the ability of the aerobic system to repeatedly apply that 25kg force for 20/30/60 minutes or longer.

daviesee

I might weigh 70 Kgs, but I don't, by a long way.
Trust me, on a 20% climb on a 34/25 at 70 rpm I am using way more muscle power than I ever do going upstairs.

As a comparison guide, these legs look fairly strong and powerful to me. I am not talking about body builder muscles.

ooermissus

daviesee wrote:

Trust me, on a 20% climb on a 34/25 at 70 rpm I am using way more muscle power than I ever do going upstairs.

Ever tried going up stairs for as long as you'd be riding up that climb?

jibberjim

daviesee wrote:

I don't understand. To maintain the same speed the lower cadence will require a higher gear and more power.

No it won't. The power required to climb a hill at a particular speed is independant of cadence, it doesn't matter if you climb it at 10rpm or 100rpm if you're going the same speed, then you're producing the same power.

What differs in the two situations is either the duration of force application or higher peak force application, as with the low cadences you need to apply higher force through more of the pedal stroke.

And no you're not using "way more muscle" you're just having to apply for the force for longer, and that is what's hurting you compared to climbing the stairs - duration of application, not maximum. Strength will help you with the maximum, it doesn't help much with the duration...

imposter2.0

daviesee wrote:

I might weigh 70 Kgs, but I don't, by a long way.

Regardless of your 'actual' weight, the issue is the same. Even if you only weighed 25kg, the comparison would still be valid.

daviesee wrote:

Trust me, on a 20% climb on a 34/25 at 70 rpm I am using way more muscle power than I ever do going upstairs.

Obviously you are using 'muscle power' - we've already been through that - but the strength requirement is well within your existing capability. What you may be lacking is sufficient aerobic fitness to deliver your available 'leg strength' repeatedly for the duration of the climb.

daviesee

ooermissus wrote:

Ever tried going up stairs for as long as you'd be riding up that climb?

Yes.

jibberjim wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I don't understand. To maintain the same speed the lower cadence will require a higher gear and more power.

No it won't. The power required to climb a hill at a particular speed is independant of cadence, it doesn't matter if you climb it at 10rpm or 100rpm if you're going the same speed, then you're producing the same power.

True. But if you are already in bottom gear and your mates are dropping you, how are you going to catch up without increasing that power? That power comes from strength. Stamina dictates how long you can maintain the effort but you need the power in the first place.

Imposter wrote:

.....Obviously you are using 'muscle power' - we've already been through that - but the strength requirement is well within your existing capability...

You don't know that until you are at the top. I have had to get off and walk before.

Let's just agree to disagree.