Super compact road chainrings

fat daddy

Yes i think its much better suited to "some" people.

For me the single 1x is even better suited at 44t and a 11-32 .... none of this annoying front shifteing, don't spin out on the hills and can climb anything on my way home even if carrying 20kg of shopping and laptop


I don't think there is a right or wrong with a choosing a ratio .... however I am sure there will be one of those cyclists along in a minute that for some reason want to turn it into an argument that there is only one ratio that belongs in this world and that's a 53:36 and anything else is just wrong and will procede to throw his toys out the pram, not before trying to insult everyone that they are not real cyclists.

imposter2.0

Absoluteblack wrote:

The 48/32 ratio seems much better suited to regular riders, especially those living in lumpy areas of the world.

What do people think?

I think that's a massive generalisation.

Bobbinogs

Is it just me or is every thread started by AB just a thinly veiled advertising plug/market research?

timothyw

Bobbinogs wrote:

Is it just me or is every thread started by AB just a thinly veiled advertising plug/market research?

Bingo.

Given 33t is the lowest toothcount you can get on a 110bcd compact chainset, perhaps AB should start with that, instead of a new standard that requires new chainsets?

It's pointless anyway, you can now get, as standard, Tiagra cassettes with 11-34 teeth. If you were still limited to 12-25 at the back then a 32 tooth chainring might be useful - you aren't.

bendertherobot

TimothyW wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

Is it just me or is every thread started by AB just a thinly veiled advertising plug/market research?

Bingo.

Given 33t is the lowest toothcount you can get on a 110bcd compact chainset, perhaps AB should start with that, instead of a new standard that requires new chainsets?

It's pointless anyway, you can now get, as standard, Tiagra cassettes with 11-34 teeth. If you were still limited to 12-25 at the back then a 32 tooth chainring might be useful - you aren't.

That may require a mech change though. The sub compact simply requires chain shortening (if that).

timothyw

bendertherobot wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

Is it just me or is every thread started by AB just a thinly veiled advertising plug/market research?

Bingo.

Given 33t is the lowest toothcount you can get on a 110bcd compact chainset, perhaps AB should start with that, instead of a new standard that requires new chainsets?

It's pointless anyway, you can now get, as standard, Tiagra cassettes with 11-34 teeth. If you were still limited to 12-25 at the back then a 32 tooth chainring might be useful - you aren't.

That may require a mech change though. The sub compact simply requires chain shortening (if that).

A new chainset (and likely bottom bracket) isn't exactly the smallest of changes either, and opens up a confusing multitude of bottom bracket standards bike manufacturers are now using. At least rear mech fittings are consistent (and as Ugo pointed out in another thread recently, those on older ten speed systems can use 9 speed MTB mechs to access much larger cassettes).

I'm personally not sure why Shimano still make so many short cage road mechs - there seems to be little advantage, and quite a lot of drawback vs medium cages.

bendertherobot

It almost certainly does require a new chainset. But there we are. I have to say I'm in the tempted group, though more in relation to my 2 CX bikes than my road one.

darkhairedlord

just buy an ebike

Moonbiker

an argument that there is only one ratio that belongs in this world and that's a 53:36

Semi compact?

Imo an annoyingly big jump between the 2 front rings

Surely you mean the old standard 53 39 or as it used to be 53 42. :roll:

Alex99

Absoluteblack wrote:

The 48/32 ratio seems much better suited to regular riders, especially those living in lumpy areas of the world.

What do people think?

What is the lower limit of the BCD for a 32 ring? Can it take a 30 or 28?

Matthewfalle

Never had any issues with 53/39 and find I only use the big ring on my 50/whatever, so not for me thank you.

And it's pretty lumpy round these parts.

markhewitt1978

I would certainly buy a 48/32 if one were available as it is 50/34 works.

Plus having a bigger range cassette only goes part of the way as you're trading gaps between gears for range. If I never use the 50-11 there's no point in having it as part of the gear range, whereas I would use a 48-11.

PTestTeam

Absoluteblack wrote:

The 48/32 ratio seems much better suited to regular riders, especially those living in lumpy areas of the world.

What do people think?

I think the whole world is going soft.

Stick 52/42 on and MTFU

borisface

You've got a point. I used to ride everywhere on 53/39 and 12-21 6 speed block at an average of c. 20-21mph.
Now I ride 50/34 with 11-26, or 28 at and average speed of c. 15mph (if I'm lucky)

The only things that have changed is I'm now 3 stone heavier and 30 years older. Hmmm

fat daddy

borisface wrote:

The only things that have changed is I'm now 3 stone heavier and 30 years older. Hmmm

that's not the only thing that's changed

(1) roads now have cars on them
(2) roads now have traffic lights on them
(3) the roads haven't been maintained in that last 30 years
(4) bike computers have been invented that give accurate speeds and don't rely on you counting seconds between lamp posts

borisface

fat daddy wrote:

borisface wrote:

The only things that have changed is I'm now 3 stone heavier and 30 years older. Hmmm

that's not the only thing that's changed

(1) roads now have cars on them
(2) roads now have traffic lights on them
(3) the roads haven't been maintained in that last 30 years
(4) bike computers have been invented that give accurate speeds and don't rely on you counting seconds between lamp posts

Ha yes you got me there. Quite literally, the road surfaces haven't changed as they've never been resurfaced! I can't recall counting second between lamposts but can remember doing drills that said 5 mins in 53x16 at 90 RPM and you had to count the revs in your head.

meesterbond

PTestTeam wrote:

I think the whole world is going soft.

Stick 52/42 on and MTFU

Absolutely...with a Jens Voigt cassette (11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12)

thomasmorris

What about braze on front mechs. Would they go low enough on a regular road bike?

timothyw

thomasmorris wrote:

What about braze on front mechs. Would they go low enough on a regular road bike?

Probably, on the basis that 46/36 is a fairly common chainset for cyclocross. Most have a fairly decent range of adjustment anyway - the difference between 50t and 48t in front derailleur height is small, and you set front derailleur height from the big ring.
To be specific, the height difference between 50 and 48 teeth is half an inch divided by pi, which works out at 0.16 inches or thereabouts.

cycleclinic

I like my 52T single ring a 12-27T cassette and my 53/41T chainset and 53/42T combo. yes the word has gone soft.

I suppose this super compact thing is aimed at gravel bikes which I dont own as there is no gravel I can ride on in suffolk, lots of mud though.

ugo.santalucia

Agree, I am on 36/46 CX and I think it's perfect... 48/32 might be a big jump but the extreme ratios are probably the best you can get

thomasmorris

TimothyW wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

What about braze on front mechs. Would they go low enough on a regular road bike?

Probably, on the basis that 46/36 is a fairly common chainset for cyclocross. Most have a fairly decent range of adjustment anyway - the difference between 50t and 48t in front derailleur height is small, and you set front derailleur height from the big ring.
To be specific, the height difference between 50 and 48 teeth is half an inch divided by pi, which works out at 0.16 inches or thereabouts.

Yeah, It's only a small change in height, but braze on only have small range of movement (about 1.5 cm?).

I know when I put compact cranks on my race bike, the derailleur is right down at the bottom of the clamp already. If I put a sub-compact or CX chainset on my derailleur you be quite high above the chainring. Never tried it, so don't know how much of an issue it would be, but I don't imagine it would help shifting.

I guess CX bike, if they have braze on, will have them lower to accommodate smaller chain rings?

Not my bike but an example:

First.Aspect

Absoluteblack wrote:

The 48/32 ratio seems much better suited to regular riders, especially those living in lumpy areas of the world.

What do people think?

No, but it will have uses. For most road riding its so close to a 34-50 that and difference can be easily accommodated with variations in the cassette.

And if you want to do market research, just say so, okay? If you want to advertise on the site, I would refer to the recent article about how BR makes money.

fat daddy

I would probably benefit more with that range ... from a commuting point of view the 50t:11t is never used, so dropping it to 48t:11t is more useable

and when I am heavily loaded with shopping etc, I do sometimes end up in the 34t:32t .... the downside of my current setup though is the big jumps between some gears.

if the 48:32 allows me to use a narrower rear cassette and get a ratio that's close, then it would be an improvement .... BUT there is nothing actually wrong with 50/34 ... and its more than useable so it wouldn't be worth swapping, but if I bought a new bike and it came with the super compact I wouldn't be bothered by it ... might even enjoy it