Compact
Comments
-
drlodge wrote:dennisn wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Cant believe some of the comments or the OP
being a compact or standard has nothing to do with how hard or fast you go, it is the gears you "chose" to pedal that determine how hard you pedal. getting rid of the compact will make no difference at all, and of course you should notice no difference in general riding, it is only when you do longer harder climbs you may notice lack of low gear on standard set up.
+1 on this.
+2
+3
Add that a compact of similar quality will save approx 200-300g too.
To pick up another point, I am not sure anyone is saying you should put one on a dedicated TT bike. Anything much over 60kmh is a bit silly but then again, if your route involves 60kmh downhills, it may also involve 20khm uphills, at which a compact will excel.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
I obviously had my tongue firmly in my cheek...
I have a compact and a standard double. For most purposes I find the standard preferable.
1. I don't often need anything lower than 39x25 or 39x28 (see 6).
2. The gap between 34 and 50 is huge and means swapping between the front rings usually involves changing two or more at the back.
3. 39 runs nicely at speeds between 25 and 35k whereas a compact is in its transition zone. This range is where 'average' is.
4. The gaps between the gears with a compact and a 10 speed cassette are arguably smaller than ideal.
5. I use 53x11 more often and for longer than 39x25. A slight decline, a tail wind, 30mph at 90rpm in top. You don't have to be Cancellara...
6. I don't live somewhere with a lot of very steep hills or very long ones. If I go to the mountains or do an event with a lot of stunt climbing I can just fit a compact.
Paul0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:drlodge wrote:dennisn wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Cant believe some of the comments or the OP being a compact or standard has nothing to do with how hard or fast you go, it is the gears you "chose" to pedal that determine how hard you pedal. getting rid of the compact will make no difference at all, and of course you should notice no difference in general riding, it is only when you do longer harder climbs you may notice lack of low gear on standard set up.
+1 on this.
+2
+3
Add that a compact of similar quality will save approx 200-300g too.
To pick up another point, I am not sure anyone is saying you should put one on a dedicated TT bike. Anything much over 60kmh is a bit silly but then again, if your route involves 60kmh downhills, it may also involve 20khm uphills, at which a compact will excel.
While I can hang in there at 60kmh downhill, at my age and weight 20kmh uphill is usually a stretch.
It should also be noted that being a fattie(of sorts) is most helpful when going down the hills. Those thin and skinny guys have to pedal and on top of that they don't get half the workout I get going up.0 -
If your doing 90rpm on 53 x 11 you would be doing 34mph not 30, also you do not have to change between rings all the time.paul2718 wrote:I obviously had my tongue firmly in my cheek...
I have a compact and a standard double. For most purposes I find the standard preferable.
1. I don't often need anything lower than 39x25 or 39x28 (see 6).
2. The gap between 34 and 50 is huge and means swapping between the front rings usually involves changing two or more at the back.
3. 39 runs nicely at speeds between 25 and 35k whereas a compact is in its transition zone. This range is where 'average' is.
4. The gaps between the gears with a compact and a 10 speed cassette are arguably smaller than ideal.
5. I use 53x11 more often and for longer than 39x25. A slight decline, a tail wind, 30mph at 90rpm in top. You don't have to be Cancellara...
6. I don't live somewhere with a lot of very steep hills or very long ones. If I go to the mountains or do an event with a lot of stunt climbing I can just fit a compact.
Paul
I use a 50 x 34 with a 12 straight through for racing and I use 34 and top four on the back for long hard climbs only, for everything else I use 50 and bottom 8 for vast majority of races so why the need to change often?
A lot of riders on here use too big a gear and claim they "spin out" and need more where in reality it is their power maxed out. Most riders need to learn to spin faster at higher speeds. Take a look at the UK team pursuit and their speed in just under 40mph av on a gear smaller than you chug along on
What on earth is a transition zone ?lol is this for the tri section?0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
If your doing 90rpm on 53 x 11 you would be doing 34mph not 30, also you do not have to change between rings all the time.paul2718 wrote:I obviously had my tongue firmly in my cheek...
I have a compact and a standard double. For most purposes I find the standard preferable.
1. I don't often need anything lower than 39x25 or 39x28 (see 6).
2. The gap between 34 and 50 is huge and means swapping between the front rings usually involves changing two or more at the back.
3. 39 runs nicely at speeds between 25 and 35k whereas a compact is in its transition zone. This range is where 'average' is.
4. The gaps between the gears with a compact and a 10 speed cassette are arguably smaller than ideal.
5. I use 53x11 more often and for longer than 39x25. A slight decline, a tail wind, 30mph at 90rpm in top. You don't have to be Cancellara...
6. I don't live somewhere with a lot of very steep hills or very long ones. If I go to the mountains or do an event with a lot of stunt climbing I can just fit a compact.
Paul
I use a 50 x 34 with a 12 straight through for racing and I use 34 and top four on the back for long hard climbs only, for everything else I use 50 and bottom 8 for vast majority of races so why the need to change often?
A lot of riders on here use too big a gear and claim they "spin out" and need more where in reality it is their power maxed out. Most riders need to learn to spin faster at higher speeds. Take a look at the UK team pursuit and their speed in just under 40mph av on a gear smaller than you chug along on
What on earth is a transition zone ?lol is this for the tri section?
By the way if you spend more time on 53 x 11 than 39 x 25 you must live in a strange place where you constantly ride downhill lol I do not even own a 11 tooth and never needed one but I have used a 25 loads. I would not like to own your knees in a few years lol but then again mine are shot, but from squash not cycling.0 -
So essentially you have the same bottom ratio as me and I have two more gears at the top. You pedal faster than your preferred cadence to compensate for the latter. Given you have very much optimised your setup for constant cadence this seems an inconsistent suggestion. But whatever.
For racing a 50 might be good (although I think I'd want a 10 speed with an 11), for battling a head wind solo a 39 might be preferable to switching between 34 and 50. Other situations suggest different answers.
Paul0 -
Surely the point is that standard makes you look like a hard man?0
-
I did not say what my preferred cadence is? In fact I do not have onepaul2718 wrote:So essentially you have the same bottom ratio as me and I have two more gears at the top. You pedal faster than your preferred cadence to compensate for the latter. Given you have very much optimised your setup for constant cadence this seems an inconsistent suggestion. But whatever.
For racing a 50 might be good (although I think I'd want a 10 speed with an 11), for battling a head wind solo a 39 might be preferable to switching between 34 and 50. Other situations suggest different answers.
Paul What time do you do for a 10m TT? 19 minutes? What is your av speed on rides because if you use the 11 so often would expect to see av speed in excess of 27mph 0 -
mbthegreat wrote:Surely the point is that standard makes you look like a hard man?
It's got nothing to do with being a hard man. Up until ten or fifteen years ago a standard was virtually the only choice, my first proper road bike in 93 came with 53/42, at the time to me there was no choice and you just got on with it, that was until my mate pointed out that it'd make my life easier if I put a 39 on....that helped.
I used that set up until a couple of years ago and I got up any hill put in front of me, in the end age and knees made me try a compact and I adapted.0 -
It doesn't matter what your preferred cadence actually is. The range of your gears is narrower than mine, and on each ring each gear is closer to the next with a bigger gap between the rings. This implies you want to maintain a narrower range of cadence, otherwise you'd have bigger gaps.oldwelshman wrote:I did not say what my preferred cadence is? In fact I do not have one What time do you do for a 10m TT? 19 minutes? What is your av speed on rides because if you use the 11 so often would expect to see av speed in excess of 27mph
OTOH perhaps you'd go faster with a standard double?
I use the 11 on most rides, I don't use the 25 that often. If I didn't have the 11 I'd get by with a 12. The extremes of gearing really shouldn't be critical in normal riding. I'm going to ride in the Peak District for a few days in May. I'll put a 28 on the rear and take a 50/34 chainset with me, just in case... I expect to spend much time in the lowest gear I can get.
Paul0 -
First of all, how on earth is a standard double going to make me faster? Pedalling with more power or higher cadence for same gear makes you go faster.paul2718 wrote:
It doesn't matter what your preferred cadence actually is. The range of your gears is narrower than mine, and on each ring each gear is closer to the next with a bigger gap between the rings. This implies you want to maintain a narrower range of cadence, otherwise you'd have bigger gaps.oldwelshman wrote:I did not say what my preferred cadence is? In fact I do not have one What time do you do for a 10m TT? 19 minutes? What is your av speed on rides because if you use the 11 so often would expect to see av speed in excess of 27mph
OTOH perhaps you'd go faster with a standard double?
I use the 11 on most rides, I don't use the 25 that often. If I didn't have the 11 I'd get by with a 12. The extremes of gearing really shouldn't be critical in normal riding. I'm going to ride in the Peak District for a few days in May. I'll put a 28 on the rear and take a 50/34 chainset with me, just in case... I expect to spend much time in the lowest gear I can get.
Paul
As for narrow gaps, yes this is exactly what I want, why would I want bigger gaps between sprockets? It is much better for narrow gaps as you will always find best gear this way, with large gaps, especially mid sprocket you can yoyo between gears to find best cadence for good rhythm, this is why most TT bikes use straight through cassettes.
Also tooth jumps on small sprockets like 13,14 are more noticeable than on 23,25 sprockets due to ratio. Thius is why blocks are typically 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23 for example.0 -
I never yoyo between gears on a standard double.
Quite often do on a compact.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
I've with oldwelshman on this. I've converted all my bikes (except single ring TT) to compact after 20 years on standards. I've not noticed any increase in cadence or constant switching. Racing with 50/12 is plenty - never felt the need for a 11 sprocket and never "spun out" even in 35mph+ sprints (i think 120rpm=around 40mph?). The only concession is my racing bike is 50/36, but that's how it came (early record compact). All rest are 34/50 (road) or 34/48 (cross). Would never go back to standard as I can't see any need0
-
Because you'd have an extra gear? Higher cadences are generally less efficient and bigger sprockets are more efficient. If you're ever in top and your cadence rises then it's a consideration. Perhaps it never happens.oldwelshman wrote:First of all, how on earth is a standard double going to make me faster? Pedalling with more power or higher cadence for same gear makes you go faster.
AFAICT not infrequently with a bigger than 53 ring.this is why most TT bikes use straight through cassettes.
Do you not just fit whatever is best suited to the occasion?
Paul0 -
Hmm let me see, well having an extra gear is not going to make anyone go faster if you do not have the engine to go with it.paul2718 wrote:
Because you'd have an extra gear? Higher cadences are generally less efficient and bigger sprockets are more efficient. If you're ever in top and your cadence rises then it's a consideration. Perhaps it never happens.oldwelshman wrote:First of all, how on earth is a standard double going to make me faster? Pedalling with more power or higher cadence for same gear makes you go faster.
AFAICT not infrequently with a bigger than 53 ring.this is why most TT bikes use straight through cassettes.
Do you not just fit whatever is best suited to the occasion?
Paul
You could stick a 63 x 11 on your bike and you will not go any faster unless you somehow increase your power. Th elimiting factor for speed is your power not the gears you use.
You say high cadance is less efficient but I beg to differ, unless your talking 300rpm. Are you saying Chris Hoys cadance in the sprint is inefficient? Bigger sprockets more efficient? Do you mean chainrings or sprockets? If sprockets then your contradicting yourself as bigger sprockets require faster cadence as they give lower gears
Do I fit whats best for occsion ? sometimes yes but very specific.
For track use 92" for training, 96" for pursuit and either 96" or slightly higher for championships.
For road just use a compact 50 x 34, with a 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23 and that is fine for racing and foregin sportives such as MArmotte and Pinarello fondo. Not run out of gears either end as yet, but I am getting older so may loose the 12 and stick a 25 on the end 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
Hmm let me see, well having an extra gear is not going to make anyone go faster if you do not have the engine to go with it.paul2718 wrote:
Because you'd have an extra gear? Higher cadences are generally less efficient and bigger sprockets are more efficient. If you're ever in top and your cadence rises then it's a consideration. Perhaps it never happens.oldwelshman wrote:First of all, how on earth is a standard double going to make me faster? Pedalling with more power or higher cadence for same gear makes you go faster.
AFAICT not infrequently with a bigger than 53 ring.this is why most TT bikes use straight through cassettes.
Do you not just fit whatever is best suited to the occasion?
Paul
You could stick a 63 x 11 on your bike and you will not go any faster unless you somehow increase your power. Th elimiting factor for speed is your power not the gears you use.
You say high cadance is less efficient but I beg to differ, unless your talking 300rpm. Are you saying Chris Hoys cadance in the sprint is inefficient? Bigger sprockets more efficient? Do you mean chainrings or sprockets? If sprockets then your contradicting yourself as bigger sprockets require faster cadence as they give lower gears
Do I fit whats best for occsion ? sometimes yes but very specific.
For track use 92" for training, 96" for pursuit and either 96" or slightly higher for championships.
For road just use a compact 50 x 34, with a 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23 and that is fine for racing and foregin sportives such as MArmotte and Pinarello fondo. Not run out of gears either end as yet, but I am getting older so may loose the 12 and stick a 25 on the end
I'm with the old welsh guy on this one. Only difference is I run a 50 - 36. Mostly because I live on the flattest part of the planet. If I take a trip to the big mountains I'll swap out the 36 for a 33 and run a 27 or 28 rear cog.0 -
I'm not particularly powerful. But it's common to be in 53x13 (roughly equivalent to your top) at my preferred cadence and have the speed still rising. So I change up, you spin faster. This is a compromise you find acceptable. Which is fine.oldwelshman wrote:You could stick a 63 x 11 on your bike and you will not go any faster unless you somehow increase your power. Th elimiting factor for speed is your power not the gears you use.
If Chris Hoy could change gear, would he?You say high cadance is less efficient but I beg to differ, unless your talking 300rpm. Are you saying Chris Hoys cadance in the sprint is inefficient?
Higher cadences are less efficient, the overhead in moving your legs starts to mount, this isn't controversial.
Rather obviously I mean both.Bigger sprockets more efficient? Do you mean chainrings or sprockets? If sprockets then your contradicting yourself as bigger sprockets require faster cadence as they give lower gears
IME the biggest argument against a 34 front ring for 'normal' riders in normal use is that you fall off the bottom of the 50x21 at 30k and need to jump to 34x14. The crossover between rings is at a very normal speed and you move from one quite cross-chained situation to another, accompanied by lots of clanking. Obviously this won't apply to a proper racer.
For most uses I prefer the 53/39 with an 11-25, change to an 11-28 if I'm worried about the hills, and if I need another bailout I fit a 50/34. YMMV but I don't see a slam dunk for the compact, especially for the non-racer (surprisingly enough) who cannot live mostly in the big ring.
Paul0 -
paul2718 wrote:I don't see a slam dunk for the compact, especially for the non-racer (surprisingly enough) who cannot live mostly in the big ring.
It's refreshing to read such a sensible comment. I think compacts, for the average rider (non-racer) are way over-rated, and this very obvious fact seems like a bit of an elephant on the table since it's rarely mentioned.
On a compact I always seem to be wanting a gear that is big-big or small-small and if I'm to avoid crosschaining all the time I have to make very regular changes even on just undulating terrain. The big jump from 50-34 and back is relatively big so it's all rather clunky with simultaneous front/rear changes needed each time.
I recently discovered that a triple (with 50/39/30) is a superb solution for everyday riding, basically being a standard plus a set of climbing gears. With 11-28 out back, I can stay in the 39 for a huge percentage of the time and the bonus is that I can use all ten sprockets with the 39 without either crosschaining or rubbing the chain on an adjacent front ring. The net result is far, far fewer changes. For proper hilly areas (like here) the closer-ratio climbing gears off the 30 are an advantage and let's face it it's only 4 teeth less than a 34 so you could call the compact small ring a granny in the same derogatory way, if you care about such things
For most, the idea of triple, with its 100g extra weight and its implied insult to one's masculinity, or ego, or both, is too much to bear so they put up with the inherent drawbacks of a compact.0 -
About to give up on this post
I do not see why compact is for racers and not beginners, in fact would say better for beginners than standard.
If you look at gears below you will see that with compact you can use 34 x 23,21,19,18,17, 16 then jump to 34 x 21 and then 19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12 so only need to change front once, so I do not know what you mean about crossing all the time?
Also I think some people need to learn how to change gears properly, when I am out riding with clubs or even sometimes when racing, you can hear the clunk as they shift on the front as they change under load and not ease off on pedals during changing.
You will also notice for bigger chainrings the gear jumps are bigger than for compact and this gets worse with smaller sprockets (10" jump) making it difficult to get gear turning and keep it turning.
below the gear chart I have put cadence and speed table, so if someone is using the 53 x 11 most of the time, if he is a very strong rider and can average 24.5mph then that is a low cadence of 65, more realistically if you average 18.9mph you need cadence of 50 which is crunching.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23
50 109.6 101.2 94.0 87.7 82.2 77.4 73.1 69.2 62.6 57.2
34 74.5 68.8 63.9 59.6 55.9 52.6 49.7 47.1 42.6 38.9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23
53 126.8 116.2 107.3 99.6 93.0 87.2 82.0 77.5 73.4 66.4 60.6
39 93.3 85.5 78.9 73.3 68.4 64.1 60.4 57.0 54.0 48.9 44.6
gearcad. 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
53 x 11 18.9 20.7 22.6 24.5 26.4 28.3 30.2 32.1 33.9 35.8 37.7 39.6 41.5 43.4 45.2
http://www.machars.net/bikecalc.htm0 -
If your using all 10 gears your chain is going to wear out due to excessive wear on outer plates due to the alignment when on small small, also you should not hear chunkingBordersroadie wrote:paul2718 wrote:I don't see a slam dunk for the compact, especially for the non-racer (surprisingly enough) who cannot live mostly in the big ring.
It's refreshing to read such a sensible comment. I think compacts, for the average rider (non-racer) are way over-rated, and this very obvious fact seems like a bit of an elephant on the table since it's rarely mentioned.
On a compact I always seem to be wanting a gear that is big-big or small-small and if I'm to avoid crosschaining all the time I have to make very regular changes even on just undulating terrain. The big jump from 50-34 and back is relatively big so it's all rather clunky with simultaneous front/rear changes needed each time.
I recently discovered that a triple (with 50/39/30) is a superb solution for everyday riding, basically being a standard plus a set of climbing gears. With 11-28 out back, I can stay in the 39 for a huge percentage of the time and the bonus is that I can use all ten sprockets with the 39 without either crosschaining or rubbing the chain on an adjacent front ring. The net result is far, far fewer changes. For proper hilly areas (like here) the closer-ratio climbing gears off the 30 are an advantage and let's face it it's only 4 teeth less than a 34 so you could call the compact small ring a granny in the same derogatory way, if you care about such things
For most, the idea of triple, with its 100g extra weight and its implied insult to one's masculinity, or ego, or both, is too much to bear so they put up with the inherent drawbacks of a compact.0 -
When I first used a compact I didn't like the big jump between the chain rings. Also, as I ride solo and don't particularly wish to 'push on' particularly hard I find most bikes are over geared. My solution is a 'custom' compact of 46-34 and a 12-25 cassette. This suits my style of riding and my local terrain perfectly. Even with the comparatively small 46 chainring I rarely find myself in 'top gear'.0
-
All this talk of how great a standard crankset is overlooks the fact that a compact can be fitted with 53-39 rings.
It can also be fitted with 50-34 rings whereas a standard crank cannot. I fail to see how this does not make the compact a really good choice for everyone. :?0 -
Stanadard doubles just look awesome.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
-
SloppySchleckonds wrote:Stanadard doubles just look awesome.
And yet Dura Ace 9000 only comes in a compact...Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
I gave up reading entire threads on compact vs. standard years ago because it always seems that at least 70% of posters don't understand how gearing works and so the old cliches get thrown back and forward... It's like reading a 10 page argument about whether witches float or not...
IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you use a compact or standard format, all that matters is the gears you have available and how they overlap. A compact 50/36 setup with an 11-23 cassette is effectively exactly the same thing as a 53/39 with a 12-25. It is only meaningful to talk about compact vs. standard if you also mention the chainrings and sprockets you are using.
In terms of chainrings:
- a 53 big ring will only be necessary to give you a higher gear than a 50 biggest ring if you are using an 11 tooth smallest sprocket. If you are using a 12, you can get an equivalent or slightly bigger gear on a 50 by using an 11. And a 53-11 gear is a very big gear...
- a smaller inner ring will allow you to get smaller gears if you need a gear smaller than a 39-27 (or 39-28 or whatever is available).
- The "jump" between the big ring and the small ring is a function of the difference in tooth number between the rings, not whether the setup is compact or standard. The jump between a 50 and a 36 is the same as between a 53 and a 39. It's just a pity that most compact chainsets come with 50/34 as standard.
Personally I think a 50/36 setup is the best of all worlds, assuming you don't need a 50-11 gear0 -
This was your evidence of your riding in races mostly using the 50.oldwelshman wrote:I do not see why compact is for racers and not beginners,
The 'crossing all the time' is out in the real world of changing gradients and winds. The crossover speed for the front rings with a 50/34 is somewhere around average speed. With your example 34x14 gives a speed of about 18mph at 90rpm. The road goes down a bit or the wind comes behind, clunk bang bang bang and you're in 50x19 at about 21mph. And vice versa. A 39 takes you through this range all by itself.If you look at gears below you will see that with compact you can use 34 x 23,21,19,18,17, 16 then jump to 34 x 21 and then 19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12 so only need to change front once, so I do not know what you mean about crossing all the time?
This is obviously really an argument for a bigger inner ring than 34 (or as pointed out above, rather sensibly, a triple). But the standard compact is 50/34. It's also an argument for an 11-x cassette because this gives you one higher gear before serious cross-chaining, whether you need the 11 or not.
Who on earth would be doing that?below the gear chart I have put cadence and speed table, so if someone is using the 53 x 11 most of the time
Paul0
