Changing from 53/39 to 50/34 - is it worth it?

Realdobby

Started using road bike again after many years off. The bike is an old Saracen morzine with a 53/39 on the front. Cannot remember what cassette is on rear apart from 7 speed sora. I have managed a couple of fairly easy rides (last one of which was 45 miles, 400m ascent, 3 hours) without too much bother. I want to increase mileage and intensity throughout the summer. Having not ridden a bike with 50/34, is it worth getting a 50/34 on the front if lbs can find one? Would it make much difference on hills?

Cheers

drlodge

It depends...on whether you need lower gears. What cassette gearing do you have and do you need lower gears?

I fitted a compact 50-34 to my old Condor, which previously had a 42-52 chainset. I did this as I needed lower gears with the 13-28 cassette on the rear - also 7 speed like you.

nochekmate

Depends where you are intending to ride and how strong you are.

I've got 53/39 on my bikes because there are few hills in my normal riding that I struggle to get up on a combination of 39/25 around my area of 30 - 40 mile round loops (Peak District is bit further than that for me before anybody sets me those hills - although 39/25 gets me around the Peaks ok unless sent to tackle some of the steep stuff on the minor roads).

At the same time, if I go up to the family place in the Lake District then I swop the chainset over to a 50/34 to give me a bit more scope at the lower end for the likes of Wrynose Pass which gets a regular visit when I am up that neck of the woods (I usually give Hardknott a miss! )

Is it worth it? Depends on your needs.

mabbo

I have a modern Defy 1, fitted with a 50 / 34compact and 12-27 rear.Last year I decided to save it for summer and fixed up my old Giant speeder, needed wheels re-built, otherwise, much as it was new in 1990 ish. The old bike has a 52 / 39 and 12-23 combo.

I commute to work 18 miles and 1000 plus feet of climbs, some steep slopes, 12 - 18% in some spots. Same homebound.
In all honesty all the compact does is change your pedalling style. More cadence and less grunt. The old bike is heavier, plus extra lighting, mudguards and heavier clothing. So obviously as soon as I go out on the modern bike, I am quicker, but I suspect nothing to do with the gearing.

What I would say is that using the old bike over the winter has improved my strenght and stamina. After a winter training on the old bike, I now do the hills on the 50t front and middle to highest on the back. In other words, having used the 52 / 39 over winter on a heavier bike, I have made much of the compact redundant. When it's time to change drivertrain, I may well convert the newer bike to a 52 / 39.

I'd stick with the bigger set and just train, eventually your legs will conquer it.

Realdobby

Ta for the replies. I have a feeling that my cassette is 12-25 or even 12-23 - must check this evening. I am not that strong/fit cf regular roadie and am probably shorter and heavier than most (5' 6", 12 stones). I live in (rather hilly) South Wales so I guess that extra gears may come in useful. My rides so far have avoided any serious hills (trips around cardiff bay, gwent levels and gower [although Gower has some horrible little postman pat steep hill-lets]) Me thinks a change to 50/34 and 12-27 may be in order (cheaper than buying a new bike, anyway).

drlodge

I've got 34-50 and 12-27 and need all those gears. I'm also 12st. As you live in S Wales, I would suggest an even lower gear if it will fit i.e. if Campag 11s (like me) you can get a 12-29 cassette.

hatch87

The other question you need to ask, is how often are you in the big ring and smallest gears? If you never get there, then swapping to a compact isn't going to affect your top speed so your not losing anything.

drlodge

hatch87 wrote:

The other question you need to ask, is how often are you in the big ring and smallest gears? If you never get there, then swapping to a compact isn't going to affect your top speed so your not losing anything.

+1 I'm rarely in 50-12, and having the slightly lower geared 50 chainring with a cassette that goes up to 27 (25 or 23 usable) means I'm in the bigger ring more of the time.

cougie

I'd not bother yet. You will get stronger. People managed without compacts for decades - so its not essential.

drlodge

cougie wrote:

I'd not bother yet. You will get stronger. People managed without compacts for decades - so its not essential.

I think that's rather silly advice. I managed with a 42-52 chainset and 13-21 cassette when I was young - I just stayed away from hills! If you want to get up serious hills, weigh 12 stone and aren't massively fit, you're gonna need some low gears.

jezzpalmer

If are struggling then it's definitely worth going to a 50/34 and 11/28 or 12/27.
I ride 50/34 and 11/28 (changed from 53/39 - 12/25 which the bike came with), the gaps in ratios can be a bit annoying at times, but I can get over the hills & mountains of SW.

A 12/27 would give you a better ratio spread, but with a 27 your easier gear isn't as easy, and you'd spin out at a lower speed with 12.

simon_masterson

It does need to be said that a compact is not a 'necessity', as they are a recent invention. If you aren't on a loaded tourer and are willing to put in the work, 39x23-25 should get you up that which this country has to offer.

But if you're wanting a bit of help on the hills, a compact does make sense (speaking as a standard double user). Professionals use them to save their legs on mountain stages (they quite often use standard in hilly one day races etc). It is a compromise: the low gear is not as low as a triple and the highest not as high as standard, and the jump between the rings large (though you can use a 36), but the low gear is low and 50x12 is a legitimate high gear (39mph @ 120rpm). You have nothing to lose, really...

drlodge

Simon Masterson wrote:

It does need to be said that a compact is not a 'necessity', as they are a recent invention. If you aren't on a loaded tourer and are willing to put in the work, 39x23-25 should get you up that which this country has to offer.

Compacts might be recent, but before Compacts you had triples But I agree with your last statement, that with Compacts you have nothing to loose. Which is why I have one.

I would certainly struggle with a 39x25 on a 1:5 hill, even a long 1:10 would be a struggle. Just managed Ditchling Beacon on my 34x27, anything higher gear would be hell. Kidd's Hill is another long grinder, about 1:10 but my cadence would just be too low on 39x25.

elderone

I changed my winter bike over to compact from 53/39 and it was well worth it.I also put a 12/30 cassette on the back.The difference was very noticable on hills,so personally I,d say it,s well worth it.

Hoopdriver

drlodge wrote:

cougie wrote:

I'd not bother yet. You will get stronger. People managed without compacts for decades - so its not essential.

I think that's rather silly advice. I managed with a 42-52 chainset and 13-21 cassette when I was young - I just stayed away from hills! If you want to get up serious hills, weigh 12 stone and aren't massively fit, you're gonna need some low gears.

I agree.

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is: do I really need 53x39?

Realdobby

You are right in that I don't use the 53 with the 12 very much at all. I think I'll go compact and give it a try, with a 12-27 cassette, if I can get one. Should help me get my lardy butt up some proper hills. Mrs'll be happy that I am not buying a new bike, anyway.

simon_masterson

drlodge wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

It does need to be said that a compact is not a 'necessity', as they are a recent invention. If you aren't on a loaded tourer and are willing to put in the work, 39x23-25 should get you up that which this country has to offer.

Compacts might be recent, but before Compacts you had triples But I agree with your last statement, that with Compacts you have nothing to loose. Which is why I have one.

I would certainly struggle with a 39x25 on a 1:5 hill, even a long 1:10 would be a struggle. Just managed Ditchling Beacon on my 34x27, anything higher gear would be hell. Kidd's Hill is another long grinder, about 1:10 but my cadence would just be too low on 39x25.

And there's nothing wrong with that, of course. I should obviously point out that I live in Hertfordshire, where there are very few hills, and certainly no 'real' ones that I know of. The best one near me is in Bedfordshire; a 15%, and I train on that generally at 39x24. It's not very long, though...

Wirral_paul

Hoopdriver wrote:

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is: do I really need 53x39?

Abolutely spot on - i very much doubt many on here "need" a 53/39 at all - even Contador manages to win races on a Compact at pro race speeds, so anyone that suggests the lower top gear will really slow them down is being daft (and 50/11 is nigh on the same as 53/12 anyway). I've got one of each with a 53/39 onthe dry bike and the compact on the winter bike. I'd rather use the compact for the hilly rides, and go with a closer ratio cassette like a 12-25). I can then easily go to a 12-28 for the really steep hills of 20%+ which we have a few of in N Wales.

If using a lower number of sprockets cassette like the OP, then a Compact makes even more sense to get a lower gear for the hills.

Monty Dog

I race with a 50 chainring and can cope at speeds approaching 70kph where it gets pretty difficult to pedal anyway. Most races I simply keep it in the big ring. Unless you are very fit and strong, then 50x34 or 36 is more suited to most riders. BITD I started with 52x42 with a 13 straight freewheel - yes, I could get up most hills but it wasn't very pretty and needed plenty of effort.

Mindermast

I think, it is worth changing if you need small gears a lot. I hardly ever use the largest three sprockets and therefore 52/39 with 13-25 rear sprockets is fine for me. But there are no serious hills nearby. 39/25 got me up a few nasty slopes in France, but that was tough. To be honest, I could live without the 52 chainring. But I have also heard of people, who could live without the 34 chainring (heard, not seen, could be lies). So, I think, it is worth changing to 50/34, when you really need it.

Pross

I was in much the same position as the OP a few years back - I'd been off the bike for about 12 years and started back with my old set up of 52 / 42 and 13 / 21 which with an extra 12 years, 4 stone and less fitness made for hard going around the roads of South Wales! I bought a 12 / 28 cassette for my old bike and also bought a new bike which had a low gear of 39 x 27. I'm still about 2 stone heavier than in my prime at 13 stone and there are certainly times I wish I had a compact but there aren't many occasions that the hills have beaten me although with tired legs it does still happen occasionally. If I was buying a new bike now I would be tempted to go for a compact but possibly go for a half way house and fit a 36t chainring. One of the biggest issues I found was that a lack of fitness and the extra weight meant riding out of the saddle was much harder and would send me into the red so having gears that meant I could stay seated for most climbs made a big difference.