standard to compact - should I

lochindaal

I was going to change the standard crank on my wife's new bike to a compact as she is doing the Etape du Tour this year. Currently she has a compact with an 11-28.

The new bike comes with an 11-32 rear and the bike shop has pointed out the lowest gear ratio with the standard is the same.

So whilst the numbers make sense not to change has anyone done this and can see a benefit (apart from the 50-32 ratio being lower still).

JayKosta

Unless the lower gearing with a compact is really needed for hills, then I don't see the benefit of the compact.

Front shifting with a compact can be somewhat more troublesome due to the larger difference in chainring sizes.

With a compact, the gear ratio difference when doing a front shift is quite large and can necessitate a subsequent rear shift to obtain the desired ratio.

Compacts are most beneficial to provide gearing for up-hill that can't be obtained with 'regular' chainrings.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

DeVlaeminck

If it was a straight no cost choice I'd rather have that gear ratio using a compact with a closer spaced cassette than a standard double and an 11-32.

mrbrightside

I ride at anywhere up to 19.5mph av with a high cadence and much prefer the compact after making the switch - go for it!

Anonymous

I would put a larger compact on if you do change.
If you put a 52/36 on and keep the cassette for the ride then she will have a lower gear if she needed it, but then be able to put a closer ratio cassette on when she gets back.
Win, win.

All this depends on how she currently finds the 34/28 gear, what hills she goes up, and how much harder the EdT will be.

paul2718

It seems a bit odd to find a 'standard' fitted with an 11-32 cassette.

For l'Etape I'd have thought a 34 with an 11-28 (or similar) would be a better choice because it closes the yawning gaps at the bottom of the range.

Paul

rafletcher

JayKosta wrote:

Front shifting with a compact can be somewhat more troublesome due to the larger difference in chainring sizes.

Rubbish. IMO 36/50 is the same difference as 39/53 and only 1 tooth difference more than the usual "standard" 39/52.

As to the OP - has your wife done anything like the Etape before? If not the potential for the lower gears with a 34/32 lowest ratio is good to have available.

Lambda

rafletcher wrote:

JayKosta wrote:

Front shifting with a compact can be somewhat more troublesome due to the larger difference in chainring sizes.

Rubbish. IMO 36/50 is the same difference as 39/53 and only 1 tooth difference more than the usual "standard" 39/52.

If I'm not mistanken, standard double is usually 53/39 while standard compact is 50/34 ?

Anonymous

I have only ever seen a 50/34 or 52/36 compact. Have not noticed a 50/36.

imposter2.0

Lambda wrote:

If I'm not mistanken, standard double is usually 53/39 while standard compact is 50/34 ?

There's no such thing as a 'standard compact'. If it has two chainrings, it is a double, regardless. There is a 'standard' chainset, which has a 130mm BCD, and there is a 'compact' chainset, which has a 110mm BCD. The actual rings you fit are irrelevant - one is still a 'standard double' while the other is still a 'compact double'.

Anonymous

People often agree/feel that there is a standard, standard double and a standard compact double though.

People often call a standard double a 'double' and a compact double a 'compact.
Seems fine to do that to me as long as you know what they are talking about......... which you probably would.

imposter2.0

Carbonator wrote:

People often agree/feel that there is a standard, standard double and a standard compact double though.

You might. Not sure everyone does. Either way, it doesn't make them correct.

Carbonator wrote:

People often call a standard double a 'double' and a compact double a 'compact.

'People' might do that. But it's still wrong.

Carbonator wrote:

Seems fine to do that to me as long as you know what they are talking about......... which you probably would.

Why not remove all doubt and just use the correct terms?

gloomyandy

FSA in their Vision range do a 52/38 crankset which as far as I can tell still uses a 110 BCD:
http://www.visiontechusa.com/products/c ... t-megaexo/
Which is virtually a "double"!

imposter2.0

gloomyandy wrote:

Which is virtually a "double"!

It has two chainrings - it is already a double. If it had three chainrings, it would be a triple.

mercia_man

Unless your wife is really strong, I'd go for a 50/34 compact with 11-32 cassette. Now that bikes have moved to 11 speed, the gaps in a wide range cassette are not that big. This would give her a high top gear for descending as well as an easy bottom gear for big cols. In a long ride like the Etape, she'll be spinning past those over-geared macho riders on the steep climbs when fatigue sets in after 70 miles or so. Low gears trump close ratios in the mountains.

paul2718

SRAM 10 speed,

11-28: 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-22-25-28
11-32: 11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32

Shimano 11 speed

11-28 11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28
11-32 11,12,13,14,16,18,20,22,25,28,32

So no real problem with gaps there for a mountain event. Apologies for the diversion.

I rode this year's event on a 52/36 crank, and I fitted an 11-28 cassette for the occasion. I think that I'll probably run the same next year.

Paul

Anonymous

Imposter wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

People often agree/feel that there is a standard, standard double and a standard compact double though.

You might. Not sure everyone does. Either way, it doesn't make them correct.

Carbonator wrote:

People often call a standard double a 'double' and a compact double a 'compact.

'People' might do that. But it's still wrong.

Carbonator wrote:

Seems fine to do that to me as long as you know what they are talking about......... which you probably would.

Why not remove all doubt and just use the correct terms?

Well you could and I would normally agree with you but:

A/ people don't and so good luck on getting that to happen. There are much worse things they do i.e. calling the small chainring 'the compact'. Although I suppose it is more compact.

B/ If you are going to shorten things, it kind of makes sense to shorten 'standard double' to double and 'compact double to compact. The only other option is to shorten 'standard double' to standard, but its not really a standard (see point 'C') and only became 'standard double' when 'compact double' was born (I'm guessing) and was just 'double' before that (guessing again).

C/ It is really the chainrings that are being talked about of which there are various options on both, so talking about it based on the BCD seems pointless anyway.

imposter2.0

How to over-complicate a very simple issue...

northpole

Currently she has a compact with an 11-28.

I think that could be quite important. If your wife gets on well with the compact cranks and that gearing, I'd be very tempted to suggest you stick with the same set up for the new bike - particularly if you can do so before buying and avoid additional costs. It's so much easier to get to know a new bike when you take out some variables like different gearing. Besides, I suspect that 11-32 is just too wide a range of ratios to make for enjoyable changes. It may be good to have the 32 in your proverbial back pocket for the Etape but unlikely to be of general use in UK unless you live somewhere like the Peak District.

Peter

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

I agree with Imposter, cranksets are either Standard or Compact, and it is the BCD which is important. With a Standard the smallest chain ring you can fit is 38 tooth, with a Compact it is 34.

overlord2

Neither. Go triple. But I forgot these aren't fashionable.

Anonymous

Imposter wrote:

How to over-complicate a very simple issue...

You could simplify it by saying they used to be called double and triple, then compact double came along, and as there is no other kind of compact it does not make sense keep saying 'double' after it.
So triple, double or compact.

Anonymous

Overlord2 wrote:

Neither. Go triple. But I forgot these aren't fashionable.

So buy a triple (changing shifters and derailleur too) just for the one ride?

jibberjim

xdoc wrote:

I agree with Imposter, cranksets are either Standard or Compact, and it is the BCD which is important. With a Standard the smallest chain ring you can fit is 38 tooth, with a Compact it is 34.

If you're really going to be pedantic...

110 BCD can take a 33

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

jibberjim wrote:

xdoc wrote:

I agree with Imposter, cranksets are either Standard or Compact, and it is the BCD which is important. With a Standard the smallest chain ring you can fit is 38 tooth, with a Compact it is 34.

If you're really going to be pedantic...

110 BCD can take a 33

Thanks, I´ve learnt something new today

manxshred

I would say go 50/34 compact and leave the 11-32 on the back. That is what I rode for the Marmotte and it was great on the steep parts of the Galibier and the Alpe.

markhewitt1978

I would generalise and say that for almost everyone who isn't racing or pretending to race, a compact 50/34 chainset is the best choice as it gives a good range of gearing and the amount of times you need anything higher than 50-11 is going to be very limited indeed.

ilm_zero7

easy solution - a standard with a thru 12-25 (or more) cassette on one bike and a compact with an 11-23 - then you can just swap the wheelsets over depending upon routes and lumpy stuff, or even better have a quick link with 2 chain links to add if you go big-big !

Bar Shaker

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I would generalise and say that for almost everyone who isn't racing or pretending to race, a compact 50/34 chainset is the best choice as it gives a good range of gearing and the amount of times you need anything higher than 50-11 is going to be very limited indeed.

^^ This.

There is also a weight saving by going Compact (ring sizes and chain length), if that maters to you.

jibberjim

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I would generalise and say that for almost everyone who isn't racing or pretending to race, a compact 50/34 chainset is the best choice as it gives a good range of gearing and the amount of times you need anything higher than 50-11 is going to be very limited indeed.

The choice of gearing should rarely be made on the highest gear, what matters is having good ratios where you normally spend your time riding - ie you want a front chainring that has you in the 15/16/17(/18) for the speeds you're riding most at.

For me 50 is too small for that, even though I would dearly love a 33 for going up hills.

Anonymous

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I would generalise and say that for almost everyone who isn't racing or pretending to race, a compact 50/34 chainset is the best choice as it gives a good range of gearing and the amount of times you need anything higher than 50-11 is going to be very limited indeed.

What has gearing got to do with racing?
I thought it was about going up hills, down hills and the stuff in between (i.e. close ratios).

As you have mentioned racing. Who exactly are you meaning racing?
Other people in an official race, or yourself on Strava or in a TT?
And how do you 'pretend to race'? I think I did it once with a mate for a photo at the finish of a sportive, but I am confused how my gearing had any impact on that lol.

My Wife is new to cycling, has a 52/36 with 12/25 and goes up steep hills that guys with lower gears are walking up. What should she do then? Get a 50/34 and a massive cr4p ratio cassette, or enter a race :roll: