Compact Crank vs Semi-Compact
Comments
-
" I would be home 1hr 42 mins before him...
Time enough to cook a Bouillabaisse.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:Pinno wrote:Come on Milemuncher, admit it: You have failed to prove the relevance of your argument and flapping your legs about can actually be efficient and a bit quicker than you. You are not making any gains in your CV fitness and although it's horses for courses*, your personal preference to not flap your legs and the (obscure) relative merit of low cadence has no relevance to this thread. You are happy with 100 mile grinding and you are also unique: Even the most recreational of cyclists I have come across pedal quicker.
*Should that be 'fish for rivers' ?
Nice ton ride MB (although at an ave 13.1 mph. I think you need to up your cadence
). Even I could keep up with you.
I think the initial point that I was trying to demonstrate ( with examples) that you can do all sorts of rides, with all sorts of gearing choices, and that changing a compact for a Semi / triple / single, really isn't going to have a massive impact, then I trip trapped over someone's bridge, and it all got a bit off topic. Another point, is that Strava includes all the bits of the rides, where I stop, have a coffee, get stuck at traffic lights etc. I'm not particularly slow, Strava averages make it look a lot worse than is the case, but hey ho.
Well, strava takes your moving time. And your total time. You can see that for yourself. The main point is that if you are riding slowly, at a low cadence then gearing will make less of a difference. But you are so far from a typical example to be irrelevant. For the majority of riders it is a completely inaccurate assertion. They should be riding the correct gear for a higher cadence which is massively more efficient.0 -
There is an 'Edit' function for your posts 97. I think there is an extra 'i' and an 'r'...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Xxxx me, still going. I do hope the OP posting in "Beginners" got some good advice, somewhere in this....0
-
MikeBrew wrote:Pinno wrote:
Nice ton ride MB (although at an ave 13.1 mph. I think you need to up your cadence ). Even I could keep up with you.
In actuality his true average speed is closer to 10mph, meaning you'd probably be miles ahead of him, rather than merely keeping up. Devices that pause the timer whilst you're in the pub having a few pints and a 3 course lunch tend to flatter.....God only knows how he thinks posting such rides says anything other than that his choice of gearing and cadence is extremely INEFFICIENT.... He defeats his own argument without even the vaguest awareness that that is what he's doing... 5.7mpm(minutes per mile) is slower than many runners.
I can't decide between daft or deluded, but if it makes him happy where the harm eh? 8) presumably "Milemuncher" alludes to the fact that he takes his time to chew each and every mile over, for very nearly a full 6minutes...
Mocking the speed someone rides at is not my point, everyone rides at their own pace and as long as they enjoy what their doing that's great .
My point is that holding up a patently slow, flat ride as evidence of the effectiveness on a low cadence and large gear is misguided to say the least....
Lol0 -
Pinno wrote:" I would be home 1hr 42 mins before him...
Time enough to cook a Bouillabaisse.
Lol0 -
Ah, the quality of debate has got quite beyond me now. I'm out.0
-
For some reason all MM's talk of Willy waving turned my mind to a very funny Monty Python sketch featuring "Biggus Dickus" and "Incontinentia of Buttock".... Hilarious and well worth 5 minutes(less than a mile) of
anyone's time...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zyv6YHR_UE
"Naughtius Maximus" also got a mention.... Markus Areola-us sounds like a bit of a tit, but was notably absent. Shame, he would have fitted right into a skit like that... Similar lack of self awareness to Michael Palin's character, Caesar. The Sillyous Soddus :twisted:0 -
Still not sure why the OP thought that he would be able to go faster by adding bigger front rings when it's apparent that he couldn't push the biggest ones he already had. I guess he believed his friend who gave him bad advise.0
-
Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.0
-
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.0 -
Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
Depends on who you want 'street cred' with. It only seems to be a particular selection of the cycling world that says you need to have this or that when logic says it will make no significant difference.0 -
bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
52/42 is fine for less-able riders for sure.
Real men ride a setup like this - I know triples are not ever so cool, but an 80/73/53 one is pretty unique:
Miles (his real name) is a proponent of ultra low cadence for distance much like milemuncher. Whatevs. I rode a 1200km event on 71" fixed last year and had a hoot as I flapped my legs around.0 -
I reckon those bars started out as drops but gradually got pulled out of shape...0
-
marcusjb wrote:bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
52/42 is fine for less-able riders for sure.
Real men ride a setup like this - I know triples are not ever so cool, but an 80/73/53 one is pretty unique:
Miles (his real name) is a proponent of ultra low cadence for distance much like milemuncher. Whatevs. I rode a 1200km event on 71" fixed last year and had a hoot as I flapped my legs around.
Interesting. Is he fast, or does he ride further than anyone else? If you make claims about a wildly different approach, you need to back it up with results. See Graeme Obree.0 -
Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).0 -
bompington wrote:I reckon those bars started out as drops but gradually got pulled out of shape...
0 -
Alex99 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).
Thanks. MPH or KPH? What's the rationale for such big gears?
kph
You'd have to ask him or milemuncher. There are a few, and I do mean a few, riders doing long distances on big gears - a few fixed riders using 90+ inch gears (I ride 67 usually, geared up to 71 inch for Paris-Brest-Paris last year, primarily to try and make the long downhills less agonising on m'arse).
But the reality for most of us mere mortals is lower gears are more important than higher gears. For most of us at the end of a long day, the ability to spin up even gentle hills is far more important than being able to still pedal a bike downhill at 80kph+. I reckon my 11 tooth sprocket on the geared bikes stays pretty clean on most big rides!0 -
Isn't 52 X 42 so 1970s. Didn't everyone give up on a 42 inner ring by 1990, even I have a bike with 53 X 39 but I only take it out when it's foggy as I wouldn't folk to think I'm not right there with the latest trends.bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.0 -
Webboo wrote:
Isn't 52 X 42 so 1970s. Didn't everyone give up on a 42 inner ring by 1990, even I have a bike with 53 X 39 but I only take it out when it's foggy as I wouldn't folk to think I'm not right there with the latest trends.bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
I had a Raleigh Tour of Britain between 1974 and 1983. Gas pipe frame and a 52/42 chainset and a 5 speed block. But I was young and enthusiastic and coursing with testosterone, so I happily rode it all over Yorkshire including Dales and Moors. Even made it up Ditchling Beacon on the L2B.
Now I'm a lot older I have light alu and carbon framed bikes. I have a 53/39 chainset, but it's in a cardboard box on a shelf in the garage. I should really sell it. Do you think if I wait long enough they'll come back into fashion??0 -
Webboo wrote:
Isn't 52 X 42 so 1970s. Didn't everyone give up on a 42 inner ring by 1990, even I have a bike with 53 X 39 but I only take it out when it's foggy as I wouldn't folk to think I'm not right there with the latest trends.bompington wrote:
52/42 X 12-21. It's the only way, unless you want to pedal everywhere at 6mph on a 62X9 single speed, at a cadence of 11½.Webboo wrote:Despite reading all 13 pages and joining in. I'm still not clear which has more street cred 52 X 36 and a 11 to 28 or 50 X 34 and a 11 to 25. I want my bike to look right even if I don't.
My first ever road bike - second hand - was a good old-school Raleigh. It most definitely had a 42, but it wasn't that old-school - it was made in 1995.
But you may have detected that my post wasn't 100% serious.0 -
52/42 is actually really nice for flat and/or rolling roads, not so nice if you ever have to climb anything that's steep,long or both. I have a very early 80's bike that has 52/42 up front and straight through 16/21 6 speed, screw on block, on the back.You can keep up a healthy cadence over rolling terrain, its great as long as you don't want to climb anything steep, as 42/21 or 2 to 1 just isn't low enough. Pretty sure that in those days even a 13T was considered tiny.
Granted top gear 52/16 is quite low, but it is genuinely usable(read USEFUL) on a regular basis, unlike 50/11.
To lend some perspective to the whole 50/11 debate(debacle?), the table below shows that at 4.545 to 1 it is actually a higher final drive ratio than a 54/12, still think it's ever going to get used to your advantage ? Dream on.
0 -
Never in the field of cycling has the art of pedantry and splitting hairs ever been so prevalent in a bicycle forum, dished out by many, to so few...
I never got to Ditchling Beacon to see the Wincanton Classic at that part of the route, I was in Lewes so that I could jump on the train and head into Brighton to see them on the finishing circuit. However, when I decided to cycle over it (52/42 x Regina Straight through 6 speed*), it was an anti-climax. No much of a bump TBH.
*Very much willy waving.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Shouldn't we be arguing about the perfect 1X setup by now, this is so 2015.0
-
Pinno wrote:Never in the field of cycling has the art of pedantry and splitting hairs ever been so prevalent in a bicycle forum, dished out by many, to so few...
I never got to Ditchling Beacon to see the Wincanton Classic at that part of the route, I was in Lewes so that I could jump on the train and head into Brighton to see them on the finishing circuit. However, when I decided to cycle over it (52/42 x Regina Straight through 6 speed*), it was an anti-climax. No much of a bump TBH.
*Very much willy waving.
At the risk of sounding (even more) pedantic, you need more of a pregnant pause after "Never".........A picture of a Union Jack draped over a Bulldog(not Churchy off the ins ads) wouldn't have gone amiss either....
PS, *Put that thing away !0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Pinno wrote:Never in the field of cycling has the art of pedantry and splitting hairs ever been so prevalent in a bicycle forum, dished out by many, to so few...
I never got to Ditchling Beacon to see the Wincanton Classic at that part of the route, I was in Lewes so that I could jump on the train and head into Brighton to see them on the finishing circuit. However, when I decided to cycle over it (52/42 x Regina Straight through 6 speed*), it was an anti-climax. No much of a bump TBH.
*Very much willy waving.
At the risk of sounding (even more) pedantic, you need more of a pregnant pause after "Never".........A picture of a Union Jack draped over a Bulldog(not Churchy off the ins ads) wouldn't have gone amiss either....
PS, *Put that thing away !
Will do.
I'll put it away now, it's getting chilly.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
It certainly looked that way from here 0
-
What about a game of hill and gear and here's my starter for ten. Rosedale Chimney 42 X 230
