Pro compact 52x36

245

Comments

  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    36 x28 gets you up most things, though probably not at the right cadence. if you regularly do 20% hills then gear accordingly, for general riding though and assuming your relative fitness is ok, then just stick with that.

    I'd only use a compact if I were doing mountain passes, alpine stuff or whitedown repeats! :)
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    dennisn wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    CASATIKID wrote:
    That's not for any macho reasons its just that I want to continue to feel like I have done a good ride at the end of a sportive.

    I don't understand this! :lol:

    Actually, me neither...

    That makes 3 of us!

    I think I understand what he's saying, but it sure is messed up thinking.

    I'm assuming it is that the relative shortness of his chain is spoiling his ride! I must admit that, every time I cut a new chain and look at the number of links I've taken off, I do feel inadequate inside....... :lol:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    philbar72 wrote:
    36 x28 gets you up most things, though probably not at the right cadence. if you regularly do 20% hills then gear accordingly, for general riding though and assuming your relative fitness is ok, then just stick with that.

    I'd only use a compact if I were doing mountain passes, alpine stuff or whitedown repeats! :)

    But that's the point...most things isn't all things, and I don't want to be struggling or getting off and walking. Did a 79 mile ride yesterday and went up Guildford Lane (behind Newlands Corner) at around the 70 mile mark on my 34x29. Typically I'm out of the saddle and blowing but managed to stay seated this time, its got to be 15%+. On a higher bottom gear I'd be out of the saddle and have a lower cadence. I just don't see the point.
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    true, and I see your point. I did Britwell Hill near watlington, yesterday which is a great climb (average of around 12-13%) but by the middle to upper section, I was "spinning" at 50rpm.... because of a number of issues... so yeah, you have a point.

    I guess its what we are all comfortable with, I generally run at a slightly lower cadence than my clubmates ( around 83 -87 on the flat), but also don't mind churning up hill. I'm very definitely not a skinny climber...
  • earth
    earth Posts: 934
    NapoleonD wrote:
    I sometimes ride with a semi on.

    Hope you don't wear white shorts.
  • OnTheRopes
    OnTheRopes Posts: 460
    edited May 2016
    Imposter wrote:
    drlodge wrote:
    If changing from 39x53 to give yourself a lower gear ratio, I'd go the whole hog and get a compact 34x50. Your knees will thank you in later life.

    How much later? I spent the late 80s, 90s and a lot of the 2000s racing on 42/52 and in 2016 my knees are still fine. If cyclists get knee problems, I suspect the real reasons are usually more to do with either something congenital or otherwise unrelated to cycling.

    I know what you mean, I raced in the same era and it was always 42/52 however we moved on to 39/53.

    After having my bikes stolen and in a hurry for a new bike I went for 36/52, got rid of the eleven and ride 11 speed 12-25 which will get me up pretty much anything. If I was going for the Frec Whitton (which I have no intention of) then that is another matter.

    The point is, as an ex racer you know yourself, you know how fit you are and as long as you are reasonably fit you will find 36/52 a lovely ratio. Fit a 28 sprocket if you feel the need for a particularly hilly event.

    Edit: Having said the above that all assumes you have or intend to get a good base in. If you are going straight in to riding hilly sportives without a few thousand in your legs I would seriously consider a compact
  • the_hundredth_idiot
    the_hundredth_idiot Posts: 813
    I've got 50/34 and 12/25 on my new bike. The 25 is just a little too small for me - fine the vast majority of the time, but I could really do with another gear for the steeper hills (Ditchling Beacon, for example). I get up the hill okay, but it's hard work.

    Conversely, I often find myself wanting another gear on the long, slightly downhill stretches.

    So I'm probably going to get an 11/28 cassette to replace the 12/25.

    I've averagely fit and have no shame. (Some of the guys I ride with have the enormous 11/32 cassettes matched with compacts.)
    Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    SRAM do 11-26 I think which are shimano compatible
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    The Hundredth Idiot wrote:
    I've got 50/34 and 12/25 on my new bike. The 25 is just a little too small for me - fine the vast majority of the time, but I could really do with another gear for the steeper hills (Ditchling Beacon, for example). I get up the hill okay, but it's hard work.

    Conversely, I often find myself wanting another gear on the long, slightly downhill stretches.

    So I'm probably going to get an 11/28 cassette to replace the 12/25.

    I've averagely fit and have no shame. (Some of the guys I ride with have the enormous 11/32 cassettes matched with compacts.)
    Gearing has zero effect (in theory) on the amount of "work" it takes to get to the top of a hill. All gearing can offer is to vary your leg speed(RPM's). Higher RPM's may offer a feeling of easier pedaling but you will still do the same amount of "work" in getting to the top as you would using larger gears and less RPM's.
  • taon24
    taon24 Posts: 185
    dennisn wrote:
    Gearing has zero effect (in theory) on the amount of "work" it takes to get to the top of a hill. All gearing can offer is to vary your leg speed(RPM's). Higher RPM's may offer a feeling of easier pedaling but you will still do the same amount of "work" in getting to the top as you would using larger gears and less RPM's.
    While this is technically true, the peak power required to get the cranks to continue to turn is higher with a lower RPM and this may push people's muscles beyond what they are capable of physiologically on steep climbs - making them subjectively harder.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    dennisn wrote:
    Gearing has zero effect (in theory) on the amount of "work" it takes to get to the top of a hill. All gearing can offer is to vary your leg speed(RPM's). Higher RPM's may offer a feeling of easier pedaling but you will still do the same amount of "work" in getting to the top as you would using larger gears and less RPM's.

    This is like saying 'driving a car up a col is the same if you do it in 1st gear or 4th'.

    Technically the same amount of 'work', but efficiency varies enormously.

    Scream the engine at 6000rpm in 1st or let in bog down at 1000rpm in 4th?

    Same for cycling - find the right gear for best efficiency. Pros almost all maintain a high cadence up steep cols, their cadence doesn't drop massively as soon as they start going up. Amateurs however, do tend to see a big drop in cadence as soon as the climb starts, which IMHO is not a good thing. Being able to spin up a climb is a skill worth having.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Inexperienced riders however, do tend to see a big drop in cadence as soon as the climb starts,

    FTFY
  • napoleond
    napoleond Posts: 5,992
    I do think 52/36 is the sweet spot of chain ring ratios.

    I used one with an 11/28 in the Beacon little mountain TT this year, it was spot on, enough on the descents and got me up the hills fine, near the end of the route there is a right swine of a hill (ankerdine) and you are really blowing by that point.
    Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
    ABCC Cycling Coach
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    Climbing tougher climbs on unsuitable gears can also give people knee trouble. a lot of folks that have come to the sport later in life think they need the double to look pro, then wonder why they are struggling up a 15% climb on 39 x25.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    philbar72 wrote:
    Climbing tougher climbs on unsuitable gears can also give people knee trouble..

    I'd be keen to know the process by which this happens?
  • the_hundredth_idiot
    the_hundredth_idiot Posts: 813
    dennisn wrote:
    Gearing has zero effect (in theory) on the amount of "work" it takes to get to the top of a hill. All gearing can offer is to vary your leg speed(RPM's). Higher RPM's may offer a feeling of easier pedaling but you will still do the same amount of "work" in getting to the top as you would using larger gears and less RPM's.

    Fair point. I'll try the Beacon using 50/12 next time and see if I can make it ...
    Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.
  • nickbotfield
    nickbotfield Posts: 68
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Same for cycling - find the right gear for best efficiency. Pros almost all maintain a high cadence up steep cols, their cadence doesn't drop massively as soon as they start going up. Amateurs however, do tend to see a big drop in cadence as soon as the climb starts, which IMHO is not a good thing. Being able to spin up a climb is a skill worth having.
    I have absolutely no problem with having a compact chainset with an 11-32 on my new bike! The spinnier the better in my case.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    philbar72 wrote:
    Climbing tougher climbs on unsuitable gears can also give people knee trouble..

    I'd be keen to know the process by which this happens?

    Is it not simply the fact that putting large amounts of force through your leg (and your joints) (hard gear) will strain them more than low force / high speed, (easy gear)?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    philbar72 wrote:
    Climbing tougher climbs on unsuitable gears can also give people knee trouble..

    I'd be keen to know the process by which this happens?

    Is it not simply the fact that putting large amounts of force through your leg (and your joints) (hard gear) will strain them more than low force / high speed, (easy gear)?

    No, because the forces are relatively low. Your joints will bear much more weight simply by walking - and that doesn't normally give people knee problems either.
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    Imposter wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    philbar72 wrote:
    Climbing tougher climbs on unsuitable gears can also give people knee trouble..

    I'd be keen to know the process by which this happens?

    Is it not simply the fact that putting large amounts of force through your leg (and your joints) (hard gear) will strain them more than low force / high speed, (easy gear)?

    No, because the forces are relatively low. Your joints will bear much more weight simply by walking - and that doesn't normally give people knee problems either.

    Sorry that's rubbish. The laws of physics say you will strain your knees more by pedalling slowing for a certain power output. Lower the rpm, the torque and hence force goes up in proportion.

    When you walk, your knees aren't bent that much. Cycling up a steep hill, giving it all you've got, I'm pulling on the handle bars, so that's perhaps more "weight" going through one knee than I weigh (75kg-80kg) and my knee is bent a lot more than when I'm walking.
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    I'm with Doctor Lodge on this one :)
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    drlodge wrote:

    Sorry that's rubbish. The laws of physics say you will strain your knees more by pedalling slowing for a certain power output. Lower the rpm, the torque and hence force goes up in proportion.

    The laws of physics might say that more force is applied through that joint, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about 'straining' the knees. Especially if the force required is well within the tolerance of most people with normal leg function.
    drlodge wrote:
    When you walk, your knees aren't bent that much. Cycling up a steep hill, giving it all you've got, I'm pulling on the handle bars, so that's perhaps more "weight" going through one knee than I weigh (75kg-80kg) and my knee is bent a lot more than when I'm walking.

    My point is, the forces are still significantly less than those used when walking, running, climbing stairs, etc. Using your analogy, it's a wonder we aren't all using crutches....and I'm also wondering why doctors would prescribe cycling exercises to people with knee problems if the activity carried such a risk of exacerbating someone's diagnosed knee problems?

    Or could it be that the 'big gear/knee problem' thing is all just a bit of a myth?
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    NapoleonD wrote:
    I do think 52/36 is the sweet spot of chain ring ratios.

    For you. For some it's 50/34 for some it's 53/39 for others it's something else entirely.
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    Imposter wrote:
    drlodge wrote:

    Sorry that's rubbish. The laws of physics say you will strain your knees more by pedalling slowing for a certain power output. Lower the rpm, the torque and hence force goes up in proportion.

    The laws of physics might say that more force is applied through that joint, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about 'straining' the knees. Especially if the force required is well within the tolerance of most people with normal leg function.
    drlodge wrote:
    When you walk, your knees aren't bent that much. Cycling up a steep hill, giving it all you've got, I'm pulling on the handle bars, so that's perhaps more "weight" going through one knee than I weigh (75kg-80kg) and my knee is bent a lot more than when I'm walking.

    My point is, the forces are still significantly less than those used when walking, running, climbing stairs, etc. Using your analogy, it's a wonder we aren't all using crutches....and I'm also wondering why doctors would prescribe cycling exercises to people with knee problems if the activity carried such a risk of exacerbating someone's diagnosed knee problems?

    Or could it be that the 'big gear/knee problem' thing is all just a bit of a myth?

    It does sell long cage dérailleurs, compact chainsets and dinner plate cassettes. Oh, and the upgrade to 11sp to get the ratios closed up again.
    Apparently 650 front wheels prevent the dangerous hazzard of toe -overlap, which we will all be suffering from next year. :shock:
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:

    The laws of physics might say that more force is applied through that joint, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about 'straining' the knees. Especially if the force required is well within the tolerance of most people with normal leg function.

    It goes without saying that if you put more force through something you 'strain' it more. Syntace will test a seatpost by putting more and more force through it until it breaks.
    Imposter wrote:
    My point is, the forces are still significantly less than those used when walking, running, climbing stairs, etc. Using your analogy, it's a wonder we aren't all using crutches....and I'm also wondering why doctors would prescribe cycling exercises to people with knee problems if the activity carried such a risk of exacerbating someone's diagnosed knee problems?

    Or could it be that the 'big gear/knee problem' thing is all just a bit of a myth?

    You are historically fixated with the idea that cycling uses less force than just about anything else a human can do. I disagree.
    When a powerful sprinter is going for the line in a big gear and putting over 1000W through the pedals, sorry, but that's a lot of force right there. Force that can snap chains, flex wheels and bend frames.
    Similarly, if I was to try and climb Sa Calobra in 50-11, I really don't think it would do me, my legs or my joints much good.
    Cycling IS low force, low impact if you take it easy and spin, which is why it is prescribed over running.
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    Imposter wrote:
    drlodge wrote:

    Sorry that's rubbish. The laws of physics say you will strain your knees more by pedalling slowing for a certain power output. Lower the rpm, the torque and hence force goes up in proportion.

    The laws of physics might say that more force is applied through that joint, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about 'straining' the knees. Especially if the force required is well within the tolerance of most people with normal leg function.
    drlodge wrote:
    When you walk, your knees aren't bent that much. Cycling up a steep hill, giving it all you've got, I'm pulling on the handle bars, so that's perhaps more "weight" going through one knee than I weigh (75kg-80kg) and my knee is bent a lot more than when I'm walking.

    My point is, the forces are still significantly less than those used when walking, running, climbing stairs, etc. Using your analogy, it's a wonder we aren't all using crutches....and I'm also wondering why doctors would prescribe cycling exercises to people with knee problems if the activity carried such a risk of exacerbating someone's diagnosed knee problems?

    Or could it be that the 'big gear/knee problem' thing is all just a bit of a myth?


    I'm basing it on personal experience. though I have had ACL issues and cartilage problems on both knees after giving up playing football/ rugby at a decent level a few years back. so my case could be slightly different than the average joe, perhaps more wear and tear?.... Anyway, if I grind up a few hills my knees hurt, so nowadays where possible I spin. though not at 95 rpm or anything like that, just over 70 -75 rpm...

    maybe it is a fallacy...
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    philbar72 wrote:

    I'm basing it on personal experience. though I have had ACL issues and cartilage problems on both knees after giving up playing football/ rugby at a decent level a few years back. so my case could be slightly different than the average joe, perhaps more wear and tear?.... Anyway, if I grind up a few hills my knees hurt, so nowadays where possible I spin. though not at 95 rpm or anything like that, just over 70 -75 rpm...

    maybe it is a fallacy...

    It certainly isn't a fallacy if you have a pre-existing condition, that's true. But I've yet to see any evidence that high-gear work actually promotes knee pain or joint problems specifically..
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    bernithebiker wrote:
    It goes without saying that if you put more force through something you 'strain' it more.

    Well obviously. As long as we aren't using the word 'strain' in the context of 'damage', then that's fine.

    bernithebiker wrote:
    You are historically fixated with the idea that cycling uses less force than just about anything else a human can do. I disagree.

    Good - so do I.. That's an absurd strawman argument, not to mention something I have never said.
    bernithebiker wrote:
    When a powerful sprinter is going for the line in a big gear and putting over 1000W through the pedals, sorry, but that's a lot of force right there. Force that can snap chains, flex wheels and bend frames.
    Similarly, if I was to try and climb Sa Calobra in 50-11, I really don't think it would do me, my legs or my joints much good.
    Cycling IS low force, low impact if you take it easy and spin, which is why it is prescribed over running.

    Doesn't sound like you understand the difference between power and force, but let's stick to the discussion in hand. It is obviously possible for cyclists to get knee problems, just like anyone else - from things like over-use, poor fit, things like that. But the specific issue of high-gear work promoting knee problems in an otherwise healthy knee (or knees) is not proven as far as I'm aware. Steve Hogg has a good page on knee problems here:

    https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bi ... knee-pain/

    No mention of pulling high hears up hills though...
  • paul2718
    paul2718 Posts: 471
    I think the idea that a 39 will cause long term knee damage that a 34 won't is probably a myth. It's my experience that bastard hills remain bastard hills in any reasonable low gear, and that when you are crawling up the third col of the day whether you are on 34x28 or 36x28 or even 34x30 makes relatively little difference to the crawl.

    I rather like the 52/36 combo, especially with Di2 to make front shifts smoother. A 39 is really nice for many occasions, particularly into the wind and with a 53 the close front ratio is convenient. But a 50 makes a wide ranging big ring for those who like that sort of thing. So get one of each.

    Paul
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    bernithebiker wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Gearing has zero effect (in theory) on the amount of "work" it takes to get to the top of a hill. All gearing can offer is to vary your leg speed(RPM's). Higher RPM's may offer a feeling of easier pedaling but you will still do the same amount of "work" in getting to the top as you would using larger gears and less RPM's.

    This is like saying 'driving a car up a col is the same if you do it in 1st gear or 4th'.

    Technically the same amount of 'work', but efficiency varies enormously.

    Scream the engine at 6000rpm in 1st or let in bog down at 1000rpm in 4th?

    Same for cycling - find the right gear for best efficiency. Pros almost all maintain a high cadence up steep cols, their cadence doesn't drop massively as soon as they start going up. Amateurs however, do tend to see a big drop in cadence as soon as the climb starts, which IMHO is not a good thing. Being able to spin up a climb is a skill worth having.

    I'm not talking about you or me or a car. I'm talking about the amount of work it takes to move an object of a certain weight(you and a bike) a certain height(vertical drop). That has nothing to do with "efficiency". No matter what "efficiency" you pedal with or the car motor runs has any or zero effect on the amount of work that must be done to move you and bike or car to the top of the hill.

Categories