Compact Crank vs Semi-Compact
Comments
-
Mercia Man wrote:He said pushing that 100 inch gear for more than five or six kilometres was the hardest thing he had done in his life.
Source? I would think that Eddy spent much of his racing career on that gear! And higher, assuming he ran 13 ups.0 -
Pinno wrote:The advice should be about cadence: Find a range of gears that allows you to readily achieve 80-90 rpm over all terrain taking front chainrings and rear sprocket combinations into consideration.
I used to ride with track riders who could whizz by me in 52 x 14/15 and I would have to get off the saddle to keep up. They had developed such good leg speed that they could sit and spin keeping the bike as steady as you like.
Achieving a good, steady cadence is often about technique, saddle position, crank arm length (dare I say it), type of training and not always gear ratio's.
However, seems like newcycle has got a bit stronger and needs a step up to a slightly bigger set of gears. Not a lot else to say really.
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.
The reason a higher cadence is used by many is because it uses the CV system, rather than putting all the strain on the muscles0 -
So how many of the boys, on this forum, who claim to push this 50-11, can do a 25 mile TT in less than an hour? Or are their experiences in the 30 mph zone limited to downhills and a few minutes on the flats?0
-
0
-
redvision wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.
The reason a higher cadence is used by many is because it uses the CV system, rather than putting all the strain on the muscles
That's correct, you'll often hear the phrase about your engine being your heart and lungs, not your legs and knees, but the engine's effort is wasted if the transmission isn't working properly.0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Mercia Man wrote:He said pushing that 100 inch gear for more than five or six kilometres was the hardest thing he had done in his life.
Source? I would think that Eddy spent much of his racing career on that gear! And higher, assuming he ran 13 ups.
From a very interesting and detailed account of Eddy's hour in http://www.bikeraceinfo.com: "My 52X14 was plenty big for me. For five or six kilometers it didn't pose a problem, but for a whole hour it was very much otherwise."
From Wiki: "In 1972, Eddy Merckx set a new hour record at 49.431 km (30.715 mi) in Mexico City at an altitude of 2,300 m (7,500 ft) where he proclaimed it to have been "the hardest ride I have ever done".
Ernesto Colnago described how absolutely shattered Eddy was after his brilliant ride. He never attempted the hour again.
Edit: Here's the link to the full bikeraceinfo article I referred to: http://bikeraceinfo.com/riderhistories/ ... ecord.html0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:The advice should be about cadence: Find a range of gears that allows you to readily achieve 80-90 rpm over all terrain taking front chainrings and rear sprocket combinations into consideration.
I used to ride with track riders who could whizz by me in 52 x 14/15 and I would have to get off the saddle to keep up. They had developed such good leg speed that they could sit and spin keeping the bike as steady as you like.
Achieving a good, steady cadence is often about technique, saddle position, crank arm length (dare I say it), type of training and not always gear ratio's.
However, seems like newcycle has got a bit stronger and needs a step up to a slightly bigger set of gears. Not a lot else to say really.
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.
The headlines that were attached to that study in the cycling press provided a somewhat misleading picture of the data and the conclusions.
The point about a rider using most of his/her effort to spin the legs round is taken from a figure based on very low wattage (50) and a very high cadence (110). Presumably most recreational cyclists will produce much higher power than that.
I'm not sure that deriving the conclusion that amateur riders should use a lower cadence is a correct reading of the data at all.
http://road.cc/content/news/164148-how- ... ste-energy0 -
As with most things it's what fits the 'average' rider. Now someone who does entire rides at 40rpm clearly isn't the average rider, even if it does work for them.0
-
markhewitt1978 wrote:As with most things it's what fits the 'average' rider. Now someone who does entire rides at 40rpm clearly isn't the average rider, even if it does work for them.
Again, very much so. I wouldn't advocate what I do as a great idea to a newbie, I wouldn't necessarily advocate a high cadence approach either, but it is very much horses for courses, and each to their own. As long as the onus is on making the riding enjoyable, how that is quantified, is very much personal choice.0 -
dennisn wrote:So how many of the boys, on this forum, who claim to push this 50-11, can do a 25 mile TT in less than an hour? Or are their experiences in the 30 mph zone limited to downhills and a few minutes on the flats?
I've just entered one on 13 March, my biggest gear will be - wait for it - 53/11 - gulp! I'll let you know how I get on.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:The...really.
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.
'...flapping their legs about' !! Chris Froome and every pro-rider is doing it all wrong...
What was your average speed for that 160 mile epic?
I presume that you suffered no lactic acid build up.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:
'...flapping their legs about' !! Chris Froome and every pro-rider is doing it all wrong...
In cycling we like to quote what the pros do, and I suppose for good reason. But what they do in order to achieve top performance in a race situation isn't always of benefit to a recreational rider looking to do 30 miles or lose a bit of weight.
I'm not saying you're wrong; just that those comparisons much be treated with caution.0 -
To the people worried about about what their cadence "should be". Don't. From the pros on down to the grass roots riders there are no coaches teaching cadence. No one is telling pro riders that they need to increase or decrease their cadence. That lots and lots of upper level riders use 80 to 100 rpm's is well known. No one is hammering or nagging at them to do this. IMHO the reason for this is that the brain and the body work together to arrive at the easiest way to do something that is hard and repetitive(cycling). Pretty much everyone searches for an easier way to do most everything and since we are all mostly built alike we tend to all find pretty much the easiest way to accomplish a goal. That most upper and mid level riders use basically the same cadence should not surprise anyone. Without even being told to our brains and bodies will eventually find that the 80 - 100 cadence will suit most of us best in sport of bicycle racing.0
-
BigMat wrote:dennisn wrote:So how many of the boys, on this forum, who claim to push this 50-11, can do a 25 mile TT in less than an hour? Or are their experiences in the 30 mph zone limited to downhills and a few minutes on the flats?
I've just entered one on 13 March, my biggest gear will be - wait for it - 53/11 - gulp! I'll let you know how I get on.
YEOW. That's gonna hurt.0 -
Seen as cycling is about fitness primarily, higher cadences will induce better fitness. If you condition the Cardio-Vascular system to be more effective, then you will be able to sustain higher speeds for longer. Therefore, cadence is a key feature in cycling whatever level you ride at.
Striking the balance between output (speed) and a sustainable cadence is a factor common to both Amateur riders and Pro's.
Chris Froome can't produce what Chris Hoy can in terms of watts but Chris Hoy cannot sustain what Chris Froome does in the way of time and distance.
Amateur or Pro, the body reacts the same to the the effects of output. It's just that I can sustain 25mph at 100rpm for, err... not very long but Wiggins can do 105 rpm for an hour in excess of 34mph.
Spinning allows the muscle to actively get rid of lactic acid and suppleness of the muscle allows the body to provide the muscle with glycogen and oxygen more effectively. Taught muscles (for all athletes of whatever ability), are not bio-mechanically efficient as that tension obfuscates necessary provision of certain hormones, energy and oxygen.
Often, taught muscles are muscles that are retaining lactic acid. There are infinite studies of the effects of lactic acid and you can look them up quite easily. Lactic acid forms a barrier to recovery (whilst still moving) as it is a barrier to the provision of the essential body fluids mentioned above. Lactic acid overload can cause cramping and lactic acid affects recovery time.
Having raced before I spent 10 years in and out of hospital, I can compare competitive cycling with my now recreational pursuits and achieving a better (higher) average cadence with a collection of granny gears allowed me to get stronger and fitter. I had so little strength to start with.
The person riding tempo at 90 rpm at 14mph steadily and smoothly for 1 hour as opposed to the bloke cruising past at 45 rpm at 18mph, is arguably doing much better as he/she is conditioning the CV system and will, given a period of time, be fitter.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:The...really.
I once rode with a Cadence meter, on my bike. Over 160 miles covered, not a single time did I register over 40 rpm. In fact that is nothing unusual for me ( I just never bother with a Cadence meter normally) I have a preference for low cadence and big gears. I chuckle a lot when I see people (essentially flapping their legs about) and pretty much wasting energy left right and center. You can have as high a cadence as you like, without the correct technique, you just look like a Lycra clad hamster in a wheel. There was an interesting study carried out by a group at Oxford University (IIRC), which actually had the figures to back the assumption up, a while back. A properly experienced and trained rider ( not necessarily pro standard) can make a high Cadence count ( due to the better technique ) the majority of people who extol the virtues of high cadence riding ( say over 80 rpm, for arguements sake) are in fact using most of their effort just to move their legs round a bit faster.
'...flapping their legs about' !! Chris Froome and every pro-rider is doing it all wrong...
What was your average speed for that 160 mile epic?
I presume that you suffered no lactic acid build up.
You obviously missed the bit where I said, that with the correct technique ( Froome et al's technique is obviously spot on) high cadence can work. But there have also been some truly great pro riders, who have favoured a lower cadence, and a big gear. As for my average speed, it's nearly always about 14 mph on the longer rides, and not usually much above 17 or 18 on a 65 mile or less , ride. I'm not really bothered by getting high average speeds, I'm not a racer, never have been, wouldn't want to be. If I eat correctly (ie make sure I'm storing a good couple of hours worth of Glycogen, in my Liver and muscles), and I keep my body fat to a level where I have enough for my body to use, over the remainder of the ride, and I don't go in to 'fuel the brain with Ketones, and screw the rest of the body' mode, then the lactic build up is negligible, especially if I factor in a deep sports massage after the rides. Up to 100 miles, I can live without it, but anything in the over 150 mile bracket, and I find it's a wise idea.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:The...really.
I once...faster.
'...flapping their legs about' !! Chris Froome and every pro-rider is doing it all wrong...
What was your average speed for that 160 mile epic?
I presume that you suffered no lactic acid build up.
You obviously missed the bit where I said, that with the correct technique ( Froome et al's technique is obviously spot on) high cadence can work. But there have also been some truly great pro riders, who have favoured a lower cadence, and a big gear. As for my average speed, it's nearly always about 14 mph on the longer rides, and not usually much above 17 or 18 on a 65 mile or less , ride. I'm not really bothered by getting high average speeds, I'm not a racer, never have been, wouldn't want to be. If I eat correctly (ie make sure I'm storing a good couple of hours worth of Glycogen, in my Liver and muscles), and I keep my body fat to a level where I have enough for my body to use, over the remainder of the ride, and I don't go in to 'fuel the brain with Ketones, and screw the rest of the body' mode, then the lactic build up is negligible, especially if I factor in a deep sports massage after the rides. Up to 100 miles, I can live without it, but anything in the over 150 mile bracket, and I find it's a wise idea.
If you are looking for fitness, cadence is much more important then speed. Have you attempted a ride where you are going at an average more than 14mph and did you achieve it by a bigger gear or a bigger cadence? Just a rhetorical question.
The metabolism of fat during exercise is a bit of a grey area. Unless you are doing high intensity rides, you are not burning much fat. Judging by your RPM and your average speed, you are not burning much fat (if any) when you are riding.
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
When you say 'great' pro riders with lower cadences, they are still doing 70+, so I still don't see your point.
I remember Colin Sturgess (despite being the former world pursuit champion no less) recalling following Guido Bontempi's wheel in a Kermesse and Guido was pulling 56 x 11 at roughly 75rpm (slow for a pro) and Colin was struggling to hold on at 90rpm plus in a different gear of course. That style is very much old school, the modern trend has been higher cadences for all - from classics to GT's, but 75 rpm is still a good 45% quicker than you.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:The...really.
I once...faster.
'...flapping their legs about' !! Chris Froome and every pro-rider is doing it all wrong...
What was your average speed for that 160 mile epic?
I presume that you suffered no lactic acid build up.
You obviously missed the bit where I said, that with the correct technique ( Froome et al's technique is obviously spot on) high cadence can work. But there have also been some truly great pro riders, who have favoured a lower cadence, and a big gear. As for my average speed, it's nearly always about 14 mph on the longer rides, and not usually much above 17 or 18 on a 65 mile or less , ride. I'm not really bothered by getting high average speeds, I'm not a racer, never have been, wouldn't want to be. If I eat correctly (ie make sure I'm storing a good couple of hours worth of Glycogen, in my Liver and muscles), and I keep my body fat to a level where I have enough for my body to use, over the remainder of the ride, and I don't go in to 'fuel the brain with Ketones, and screw the rest of the body' mode, then the lactic build up is negligible, especially if I factor in a deep sports massage after the rides. Up to 100 miles, I can live without it, but anything in the over 150 mile bracket, and I find it's a wise idea.
If you are looking for fitness, cadence is much more important then speed. Have you attempted a ride where you are going at an average more than 14mph and did you achieve it by a bigger gear or a bigger cadence? Just a rhetorical question.
The metabolism of fat during exercise is a bit of a grey area. Unless you are doing high intensity rides, you are not burning much fat. Judging by your RPM and your average speed, you are not burning much fat (if any) when you are riding.
http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-59-fat-metabolism-during-exercise-new-concepts
When you say 'great' pro riders with lower cadences, they are still doing 70+, so I still don't see your point.
I remember Colin Sturgess (despite being the former world pursuit champion no less) recalling following Guido Bontempi's wheel in a Kermesse and Guido was pulling 56 x 11 at roughly 75rpm (slow for a pro) and Colin was struggling to hold on at 90rpm plus in a different gear of course. That style is very much old school, the modern trend has been higher cadences for all - from classics to GT's, but 75 rpm is still a good 45% quicker than you.
What you say is mostly true ( except the bit about me not burning much if any fat) I always route my rides up the biggest hills I can find on the routes for as long / far as possible, and I've had my body fat percentage analysed ( just for interests sake ) before and after, a bigger ride, after the post ride rehydration. So my RPM and speed are a bit misleading, the intensity is definitely high enough. And as I said, I was speaking in relative terms as far as pro Cadence is concerned. A high pro cadence is often over 90 RPM, so someone at 75 or less is quite different (in the pro spectrum). I have been known to push my average speed over 20 mph on a sub 30 mile training / chain gang / club ride, but that's the exception not the rule, and I really don't enjoy a ride that's moving that quickly, on open public roads.0 -
BigMat wrote:dennisn wrote:So how many of the boys, on this forum, who claim to push this 50-11, can do a 25 mile TT in less than an hour? Or are their experiences in the 30 mph zone limited to downhills and a few minutes on the flats?
I've just entered one on 13 March, my biggest gear will be - wait for it - 53/11 - gulp! I'll let you know how I get on.
That's quite a big gear. Good luck :shock:0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:For quite a few of my earlier years of road riding, I only ever had single speeds, where 44/16 was my preference. After 15 or so years of that, I decided that derailleur geared bikes seemed like an option. I've had quite a few different chain ring / cassette combinations over the years, but my favoured choices are a 12/27 cassette and a triple up front, for my 9 speed Aluminium bike( which quite successfully got me round the full PRLS course last year) including Leith hill ( I got there about half an hour before the unfortunate incident). I also have a 10 speed Carbon fibre bike, which has an 11/28 cassette, and a Compact up front, and I do spend a lot of time, on anything less than about a 6% climb, using 50/11. I guess the grounding in single speed set ups has got me into that routine. I do agree that the 11/28 looks neater than the 12/27, but that's purely aesthetic, and probably holds no water, from a mechanical perspective
. Anyway, this is definitely one of those topics which is subject to the 'underpants test'.
A couple of things here confuse me. I can't see how 15 years of riding a small gear 44/16 (72.5 gear inches) sets you up to be capable of spending a lot of time (including climbs of anything up to 6%) in a big gear like 50/11 (119.5 gear inches).
Also if you spent 15 gears riding 44/16, and your customary cadence is 40 rpm or less, as you mention in another post, then it would appear that you spent 15 years riding at below 10MPH....or do you have 52" wheels ?0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:For quite a few of my earlier years of road riding, I only ever had single speeds, where 44/16 was my preference. After 15 or so years of that, I decided that derailleur geared bikes seemed like an option. I've had quite a few different chain ring / cassette combinations over the years, but my favoured choices are a 12/27 cassette and a triple up front, for my 9 speed Aluminium bike( which quite successfully got me round the full PRLS course last year) including Leith hill ( I got there about half an hour before the unfortunate incident). I also have a 10 speed Carbon fibre bike, which has an 11/28 cassette, and a Compact up front, and I do spend a lot of time, on anything less than about a 6% climb, using 50/11. I guess the grounding in single speed set ups has got me into that routine. I do agree that the 11/28 looks neater than the 12/27, but that's purely aesthetic, and probably holds no water, from a mechanical perspective . Anyway, this is definitely one of those topics which is subject to the 'underpants test'.
A couple of things here confuse me. I can't see how 15 years of riding a small gear 44/16 (72.5 gear inches) sets you up to be capable of spending a lot of time (including climbs of anything up to 6%) in a big gear like 50/11 (119.5 gear inches).
Also if you spent 15 gears riding 44/16, and your customary cadence is 40 rpm or less, as you mention in another post, then it would appear that you spent 15 years riding at below 10MPH....
That's about right.And is a 50-11 really 119.5 gear inches :shock: I'm genuinely shocked, I really haven't ever looked at it from a gear inches perspective. Ah well if it is, it is.0 -
Oh I get it.... I thought it was a typo but it's actually as simple as a case of more talking Pollocks ,,, The dry delivery belies your tongue in cheek intent .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtZx-_p4Jo0
-
MikeBrew wrote:Oh I get it.... I thought it was a typo but it's actually as simple as a case of more talking Pollocks ,,, The dry delivery belies your tongue in cheek intent .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtZx-_p4Jo
Well if that's what you think then that's just fine. I can sit here and reel off all of my rides ( all nicely logged on Strava and the like, for the purposes of making forum chest beaters eat their words), if you'd like. It's not a problem. I don't really like having to do it, it's a bit 'Stravasshole' ish, but they are all saved for posterity.0 -
Has Strava logged the 15 years of sub 10mph riding that a 44/16 gear at below 40rpm woud mean ? Well no as Strava hasn't been around that long. Also, as you mentioned that you only ever used a cadence meter once, AND Strava doesn't log what gear you're in, none of your no doubt impressive logged rides wouldn't mean very much at all in respect of the nub of the matter being discussed here, ie gear size and cadence : Very convenient for forum smoke up arse blowers ........ I have to agree about the Strava ass*ole sentiment though, Garmin connect does everything I need...Why chest beat on Strava at all :idea: 0
-
Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Has Strava logged the 15 years of sub 10mph riding that a 44/16 gear at below 40rpm woud mean ? Well no as Strava hasn't been around that long. Also, as you mentioned that you only ever used a cadence meter once, AND Strava doesn't log what gear you're in, none of your no doubt impressive logged rides would mean very much at all in respect of the nub of the matter being discussed here, ie gear size and cadence : Very convenient for forum smoke up ars* blowers ........ I have to agree about the Strava ass*ole sentiment though, Garmin connect does everything I need...Why chest beat on Strava at all :idea:
No, the years of SS obviously aren't logged on Strava, but I've still got the SS, and as you can see from my post, that's the sort of speeds I get.0 -
As said before , without cadence or gear data your rides show nothing that relates to what gear they were done in or at what cadence, which are pretty much the metrics at nub of of this discussion ...Are those details there ? I doubt it..
I'm really sorry, and I don't want to sound rude, but you're making no sense .0 -
If you look at beginners they are usually pedalling about 60rpm. If anything they learn to spin faster as they get better. 40rpm would be very much at the lower end of the spectrum but it's your knees....
As to racing a 10 with a 53 11 - that's no problem.
Unless that's your lowest gear. You're not going to be pushing that on a 10.0 -
MikeBrew wrote:As said before , without cadence or gear data your rides show nothing that relates to what gear they were done in or at what cadence, which are pretty much the metrics at nub of of this discussion ...Are those details there ? I doubt it..
I'm really sorry, and I don't want to sound rude, but you're making no sense .
That's as much sense as I can make, without actually having someone along to show which gears, and for how long / what Cadence etc. But to keep in the spirit of the thread, I'm trying to say that I tend to not be too bothered whether I'm using a Compact, Semi, Triple, or single. I guess my point is that, it's not necessary to worry about what chainset / cassette combi you use too much.0
