Compact vs Standard?
Comments
-
There are a few questions you need to answer to get a good idea what to do.Bozabyka wrote:My new frame will arrive in the next few weeks.
The bike will be used for fast riding, sportives and perhaps a few mountains.
I will be buying a Campag Veloce groupset but need to decide on compact or standard chainset.
I have researched the subject and am now still unsure what to do.
I think I will be best with compact 50/34 and a close ratio block. My concern is that this may mean dropping to bottom ring and changing more than I would with a standard.
Would I be better with a 53 top ring and a wide cassette?
I have tried using gear calculators and really do not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.
What might you suggest?
1. Are you already cyclist? If so are you a road cyclist and what do you currently use?
2. Will you be cycling only on flat terrain and some rolling hills or will you spend some time in the mountains?
3. Are you heavy? This can make a massive difference on steep hills.
4. Do you like to descend fast?
1. If you're new to cycling you will almost certainly want a compact unless you're pretty fit already and determined to work hard on your cycling. If you're road cyclist, what do you already have and if you don't like it, what's do you find a problem?
2. On the flat you won't have any need for your easiest gears and you'll want small gaps between gears with relatively little need to change chainrings (front gears). You won't need a wide range cassette (rear gears). If you're going to the hills and you're not sure you can manage on a standard double then get a compact. Better to have slightly bigger gear spacing and a gear or two you rarely use than to suffer badly or have to get off and walk on hills.
3. If you'll cycle on hills weight is very important. A man of 5'10" (1.78m) in reasonable shape might typically weigh from 65kg to 90kg and there's plenty people lighter and a lot heavier than this range. Heart and lung capacity doesn't vary massively with weight so your total work capacity isn't down to muscle and a heavier rider will almost always be slower on the hills. Therefore they will want appropriate gear ratios.
4. I've done 85km/h with a compact (50/11 gearing ratio). True the cadence needs to get up around 145rpm to do that but it's feasible. Most of us (non-racers) don't get above 70km/h very often and that only needs about 120rpm with a 50/11 or 125rpm with a 50/12....very do-able. So unless you're a demon descender or a VERY strong time-trial grinder/sprinter a compact will not limit your top speed.
If you are just starting out and are not already slim and fit from other sports and you want to do any riding on hills you will almost certainly be best served by a compact.
A compact will suffice for almost everyone. Serious cyclists may prefer a standard double to position their typical cruise speed where they like it on the chainrings/cassette. That's fine if they're strong enough to get up the hills with the heavier gearing or they only cycle on the flat. If you're not strong enough to get over the hills with a standard (typically 39 tooth small chainring) with a wide range cassette you're stuck. If you find you don't need a wide range cassette with your compact you can switch to a narrower range cassette very easily.
If you don't know a standard is the right choice then it probably isn't. A compact is definitely the safer bet.
I think I'm correct in saying that historically in the 70s the smallest sprocket you could get on the contemporary rear hub/cassette designs was 13 or 14 and they only had 6 or 7 speed cassettes. Therefore bigger front rings were needed for high speed cycling and the cassette couldn't cover a huge range without very big gaps. Now with 11 and 12 tooth small sprockets and 10 or 11 speed cassettes you can have a broad gear range with reasonable gaps and plenty top end speed without needing more than 50 teeth at the front. So a compact is a safe bet and the right choice for most cyclists. There will be exceptions I'm sure but if you're not a serious cyclist (in which case you'd surely know which you wanted) then a standard is unlikely to be the best choice.0 -
If you follow some of the pros on Twitter, you would be quite surprised by how often they use compacts.
People who are 'too hard' to use compacts either live in Holland or are not fussed about optimising the bike to the terrain.
That's without even discussing the weight advantage of compacts.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:If you follow some of the pros on Twitter, you would be quite surprised by how often they use compacts.
People who are 'too hard' to use compacts either live in Holland or are not fussed about optimising the bike to the terrain.
That's without even discussing the weight advantage of compacts.
Which is not worthy of consideration.
Not having a compact is not about being 'too hard' - I don't have a compact on two of my bikes because in my immediate area of 50 mile circular rides, I don't really need one - that's not being 'too hard' that's the reality of the situation. I have a compact on my C40, which is the bike I take with me if I'm ever in the Lake District or really heading off into the Peak District for the day.
Horses for courses.0 -
Don't be scared of pushing those big gears….I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
-
SloppySchleckonds wrote:Don't be scared of pushing those big gears….
Which is a nuts thought - because the chainrings are only part of the equation - it depends what cassette you couple it with ...
I dunno about anyone else, but I find I'm using the big chainring far more than the small one - almost to the point of wondering if it's worth having 2 chainrings up front at all ...0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:If you follow some of the pros on Twitter, you would be quite surprised by how often they use compacts.
People who are 'too hard' to use compacts either live in Holland or are not fussed about optimising the bike to the terrain.
That's without even discussing the weight advantage of compacts.
true, I only would consider a doubleScott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
There's a ridiculous attitude among many (not all) cyclists that if a rider complains of being uncomfortable or not having the gears they need to get up the hills it's the riders fault and they need to toughen up. Some are joking, some mean it.
Apparently we should all be strong, light cyclists and aspire to use the equipment we see the pros using..... Why? Even if that's our long term goal, why should we use the wrong equipment while we're getting there?
A friend of mine was really suffering trying to get up some steeper gradients when he came for ride in the mountains with me. He had a compact with a 12-25 on the back. I suggested he try switching to a cassette with a 27 or 28 tooth sprocket. He went along to his LBS where he'd recently bought the bike and told them what he was looking for. He wasn't asking for a free swap out or anything, he wanted to buy a cassette. The guy told him a 12-25 was plenty, he needed to train more and refused to sell him the cassette he wanted. Aside from being extraordinarily unprofessional this was the height of ignorance. Needless to say my friend went elsewhere for the cassette and has never been back to the LBS. He's been managing just fine in the hills ever since with a 12-27.
If you're as fast as the pros, well done...but few of us are anywhere close. If you're not cycling at similar speeds why would you want to use similar gearing?
I mostly use my big ring too but when I hit a 15-20% gradient I'd like to be able to keep turning the pedals thank you very much. The smallest gears are for when you need them. It doesn't matter if they spend 99% of their time idle.Slowbike wrote:SloppySchleckonds wrote:Don't be scared of pushing those big gears….
Which is a nuts thought - because the chainrings are only part of the equation - it depends what cassette you couple it with ...
I dunno about anyone else, but I find I'm using the big chainring far more than the small one - almost to the point of wondering if it's worth having 2 chainrings up front at all ...0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
I mostly use my big ring too but when I hit a 15-20% gradient I'd like to be able to keep turning the pedals thank you very much. The smallest gears are for when you need them. It doesn't matter if they spend 99% of their time idle.Slowbike wrote:SloppySchleckonds wrote:Don't be scared of pushing those big gears….
Which is a nuts thought - because the chainrings are only part of the equation - it depends what cassette you couple it with ...
I dunno about anyone else, but I find I'm using the big chainring far more than the small one - almost to the point of wondering if it's worth having 2 chainrings up front at all ...
Where I normally ride there are two notable climbs at up to 15% - so I have gears suited to the terrain I'm mostly riding.
If I hit a 25% then I can get up it - but it wont be a sit and spin.
I'd rather use the gears I have for 99% of my riding than worry about the 1% that it may not be suited too.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:A friend of mine was really suffering trying to get up some steeper gradients when he came for ride in the mountains with me. He had a compact with a 12-25 on the back. I suggested he try switching to a cassette with a 27 or 28 tooth sprocket. He went along to his LBS where he'd recently bought the bike and told them what he was looking for. He wasn't asking for a free swap out or anything, he wanted to buy a cassette. The guy told him a 12-25 was plenty, he needed to train more and refused to sell him the cassette he wanted. Aside from being extraordinarily unprofessional this was the height of ignorance. Needless to say my friend went elsewhere for the cassette and has never been back to the LBS. He's been managing just fine in the hills ever since with a 12-27.
If you're as fast as the pros, well done...but few of us are anywhere close. If you're not cycling at similar speeds why would you want to use similar gearing?
.
It's like a man going into a ladies underwear shop and asking for a bra for himself, some people just won't sell it on principle!0 -
I'm not sure if your analogy is accurate or not. Are we assuming they sell a bra that fits the man and it serve a suportive/practical purpose? If so, it's accurate.GGBiker wrote:Ai_1 wrote:A friend of mine was really suffering trying to get up some steeper gradients when he came for ride in the mountains with me. He had a compact with a 12-25 on the back. I suggested he try switching to a cassette with a 27 or 28 tooth sprocket. He went along to his LBS where he'd recently bought the bike and told them what he was looking for. He wasn't asking for a free swap out or anything, he wanted to buy a cassette. The guy told him a 12-25 was plenty, he needed to train more and refused to sell him the cassette he wanted. Aside from being extraordinarily unprofessional this was the height of ignorance. Needless to say my friend went elsewhere for the cassette and has never been back to the LBS. He's been managing just fine in the hills ever since with a 12-27.
If you're as fast as the pros, well done...but few of us are anywhere close. If you're not cycling at similar speeds why would you want to use similar gearing?
It's like a man going into a ladies underwear shop and asking for a bra for himself, some people just won't sell it on principle!
If he just wants one for his entertainment then it's not really accurate. Either way, however, it would still be wrong of them not to sell it.
What they may call a principle, I'd call a prejudice and/or ignorance.0 -
Personally I would call it a joke but each to their own!0
-
With most advice along the lines of cadence rather than brute force for cycling, suggesting gearing that forces low cadence seems very odd and bad advice.
The problem is, you buy a nice bike and it's expected you run a 'standard' chainsets - with the idea that only beginners use compacts.
The way you figure out what gearing you need, is usually by riding. If you are down to guesswork, you base your judgement on the knowledge you have.
If you are unsure or don't have experience, you buy a compact. People generally do not become strong riders without practice, and practice gives experience. Strong riders are not people who can leg press 300kg, but people who can cycle.Simon0 -
What is the advantage of a double over a compact?
If we are pushing the same gear inches with a 50 compared to a 52 is resistance the same?
Why does a racer prefer the bigger ring?
Is it down to cadence and strength?0 -
Bozabyka wrote:What is the advantage of a double over a compact?
If we are pushing the same gear inches with a 50 compared to a 52 is resistance the same?
Why does a racer prefer the bigger ring?
Is it down to cadence and strength?
1) Your ultimate top end speed is higher
2) Pretty much, allowing for very minor differences that may be induced by chain angle
3) They're a lot stronger than the average rider
4) Yes. A pro is going to be able to use a combination of cadence and strength to generate a level of power that can use the gearing range on offer in a standard effectively.
Also, don't think pros are allergic to compact gearing or high tooth count sprockets when the situation demands it. Ride what works.0 -
Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.
No, get a compact WHATEVER, but possibly put 53x39 or something on it if you want to.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
That might need a little clarification!jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.
No, get a compact WHATEVER, but possibly put 53x39 or something on it if you want to.
A compact with a 53x39 is not a compact so I don't understand what you're saying.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
That might need a little clarification!jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.
No, get a compact WHATEVER, but possibly put 53x39 or something on it if you want to.
A compact with a 53x39 is not a compact so I don't understand what you're saying.
A "compact" is based on the BCD of the spider, so what rings you can put it on it, not the rings you actually put on it, Dura Ace 9000 is only available as a compact, you can get it pre-supplied with 53x39 rings of course, but the crankset is still a compact.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Thanks. I get you now.jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
That might need a little clarification!jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.
No, get a compact WHATEVER, but possibly put 53x39 or something on it if you want to.
A compact with a 53x39 is not a compact so I don't understand what you're saying.
A "compact" is based on the BCD of the spider, so what rings you can put it on it, not the rings you actually put on it, Dura Ace 9000 is only available as a compact, you can get it pre-supplied with 53x39 rings of course, but the crankset is still a compact.
I thought compact referred to the chainring tooth counts not the spider size. Certainly when most people say compact they mean 50/34 chainrings which I believe always use 110mm BCD spider. Whereas a 53/39 chainrings can accomodate 130mm BCD and usually that's what they use. So you're suggesting a 110mm BCD so that you can easily switch chainrings later should the need arise. I presume the only downside is a very marginal reduction in rigidity for larger chainrings compared with using the larger bolt centre diameter?0 -
Ai_1 wrote:I presume the only downside is a very marginal reduction in rigidity for larger chainrings compared with using the larger bolt centre diameter?
That's correct, but you can just get more rigid chainrings to overcome this, as I mentioned shimano now only offer the small BCD size on Dura Ace, because chainrings are stiff enough.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
That might need a little clarification!jibberjim wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Yep, pretty much what mikenetic said.
Also bear in mind that a double with a 12 tooth sprocket is no faster than a compact with an 11 tooth sprocket but a double with an 11 will give the biggest gear - but how often are you likely to regret not having it if you go for a compact? Very rarely for most people in my opinion, which is why I'd say get a compact unless you're absolutely sure you want a standard double.
No, get a compact WHATEVER, but possibly put 53x39 or something on it if you want to.
A compact with a 53x39 is not a compact so I don't understand what you're saying.
A "compact" is based on the BCD of the spider, so what rings you can put it on it, not the rings you actually put on it, Dura Ace 9000 is only available as a compact, you can get it pre-supplied with 53x39 rings of course, but the crankset is still a compact.
No, compact is based on the chainrings. E.g shimano dura ace 9000 comes in double and compact but both have 110bcd spider. With a 53/39 it is a double not a compact.0 -
GGBiker wrote:No, compact is based on the chainrings. E.g shimano dura ace 9000 comes in double and compact but both have 110bcd spider. With a 53/39 it is a double not a compact.
So what would a 53x36 be?Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
You mean 52/36?jibberjim wrote:GGBiker wrote:No, compact is based on the chainrings. E.g shimano dura ace 9000 comes in double and compact but both have 110bcd spider. With a 53/39 it is a double not a compact.
So what would a 53x36 be?
I've usually seen them refered to as compact or semi-compact. Again not sure what the actual naming convention is and therefore which is correct. Semi-compact would imply it's down to the tooth count.0 -
So where is the advantage of a double?0
-
Only three potential advantages I can think of:Bozabyka wrote:So where is the advantage of a double?
1. Higher top end speed in the unlikely event that 50/11 or 52/11 isn't enough.
2. Your typical cruise speed/cadence is more conveniently positioned on the chainrings/cassette meaning less frequent chainring shifts (can't see this being a dealbreaker myself)
3. Machismo/Tradition. If these are your reasons for using a standard then surely you should use 6 or 7 speed cassettes too!
I may be wrong but I suspect "advantage" #3 is the main reason many people use standard doubles and I think it's a very bad reason. There seems to be a lot of snobbery and machismo in cycling, unless it's just on the forums, and these are fairly incompatible with common sense. So, it's often difficult to know what advice to take seriously and what advice should be ignored.0 -
Thanks Ai_1
I am running 39/52 with a wide block. I do not use the bottom ring much.
I think that 34/50 and a close ratio block will be an advantage to my present set up.
I may move up to a 39/53 and a close ratio cassette when strength improves.
I do not want to be switching up front more than I am at present.
Does this make sense?0 -
I use compact 50/34 with an 11 speed 23-11 cassette. Great spread of gears, no jumps.
For mountains, switch to 28-11 cassette.
IMHO, there are a lot of people riding standards (53/39) that shouldn't be.0 -
Thanks, think I have made my choice0
-
Ai_1 wrote:
No, I mean a 53x36 perfectly serviceable option...Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0
