Why Compact?

[stutue]

Unless you are a very strong rider.

 

[winkybiker]

Unless you are a very strong rider.

Well, then you spend your time in a 53. Not a wimpy 50t!

 

[dsut4392]

If you go a bit further south into Devon you'll see some crazy hills by the coast. Nice riding in the Cotswolds though...did you ever ride up to the Somerset Monument?

You're not wrong there. I bought my road bike shortly after moving to Exeter and thought "I'm in England, only a sissy would ride a compact here!". Oops. On my first bunch ride I found myself walking up one of those hills ("only" 24% from memory) in my socks so as not to wear out my new Keo cleats. At least I wasn't the only one, and barely slower than those zig-zagging their way up in their 34x27 anyway...
Now with a 1270m climb on my doorstep with several km at 9-10% I still wish I had bought a compact as I bring my way up with a cadence of 50rpm.

 

[winkybiker]

If you go a bit further south into Devon you'll see some crazy hills by the coast. Nice riding in the Cotswolds though...did you ever ride up to the Somerset Monument?

Yes, the Somerset monument was on one of my regular routes. Some beautiful roads around Castle Combe and Bath, too. It was wonderful to just head out and randomly get "lost" on the back-roads and lanes in the English countryside.

 

[stutue]

Agreed, its a very English sort of countryside. Love it.

Really like mid and North wales though for sheer drama.

 

[Master50]

53/39 with a 12-29 in 11 speed meets all my current road bike needs other than 1 or 2 short road sections I almost never ride. No compact yet.

 

[BikeCentric]

I've been on compact for the past two years and really like it. For about 10 years I rode a 39x52 with a 12-25 in the back. Now with compact I run a 36x52 in the front, still a 12-25 in the back. Not being in disgustingly skinny racing shape anymore it is nice to have that 36 tooth ring in the front to keep the cadence up on the long steep climbs. I tried compact with a 34x50 years ago when I was still racing and hated it - felt undergeared at all times. Nowadays 36x52 is perfect for me. I think compact has it's advantages for most fitness riders, strong racers may still prefer 39x53's though.

 

[42x16ss]

53/39 with a 12-29 in 11 speed meets all my current road bike needs other than 1 or 2 short road sections I almost never ride. No compact yet.

52/36 with an 11-25 does everything you can ask, with less gaps.

If it's good enough for this guy...

 

[ustabe]

I thought the 50-36 compact on my old Felt was pretty ideal. I can't really use anything bigger than 50/11 at the fast end, which is almost identical to 53/12 for you standard guys. If the hills around here were shorter, though, I'd go for a shorter top gear (with a taller bottom one).

The rush to compact gearing has left the die-hard triple guys in a lurch, though. I used to think that the "almost-as-low" formula would work for them, until I started listening to them talk about how they used their gearing. Basically, they do most of their riding in the middle ring, which is usually a 40 or 42, with what is now considered a narrow cassette (11 or 12 to 25 or 27). This gives them plenty of single-step changes until they're into the serious climbing end of the cassette. Then when the big climb or the big drop comes , they have two more rings to play with.

The compact does away with a lot of overlap, but there's a lot more shifting between rings to use those gears, and a lot of flat-road cruising is done in a mild state of cross-chain.

 

[stutue]

That's certainly true. More gears at the back helps...bring on 12sp!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I have both a compact setup and a 52-36. For road racing, especially flatter races or descents, a 52x11 is nice. Otherwise, the compact offers much better gearing for most of the riding I do, which is in the mountains. Hardly any flat riding here.

 

[hfer07]

The 52-36 combo is awesome for the off season, commuting & soft core riding, but as soon as the shape & the engine are prepared, then I switch to 53-39

 

[purcell]

What the hell difference do any of you think it makes what your chainrings are? Pick you cassette properly and it's all just ratios after that.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I see come up from time to time.

Math is easy.

 

[winkybiker]

What the hell difference do any of you think it makes what your chainrings are? Pick you cassette properly and it's all just ratios after that.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I see come up from time to time.

Math is easy.

I agree with you that you have to also consider the cassette. But it is also true that with compact, you can get a lower low gear without having to go so big on the back. This might be necessary if you are already running the biggest rear cog you can for your derailleur. The sequence of gears changes with compact, but this is much less an issue with 10sp and 11sp.

But your post completely agrees with my original post.

 

[frenchfry]

I was in a "fight" with someone on another (non-cycling) forum about the benefits of compact chainring set-ups. She'd advised someone else that a benefit was that you could spend more time in the big ring. I called her on it.

I don't really see that as a benefit (even if it was actually true - surely also depends on the cassette?). My view is that you just want to be in the right gear ratio for the speed you're going, be it on the big ring or small ring. Avoid the "cross-chain" extremes and there you are.

Does anyone here think that (for a given speed and cadence) being in the large chainring is some sort of advantage? Lower friction? Something else?

It isn't so much that I want to spend more time on the big ring, it is more that it is difficult to stay on the small ring when I would like to.

I thought the 50-36 compact on my old Felt was pretty ideal. I can't really use anything bigger than 50/11 at the fast end, which is almost identical to 53/12 for you standard guys. If the hills around here were shorter, though, I'd go for a shorter top gear (with a taller bottom one).

The rush to compact gearing has left the die-hard triple guys in a lurch, though. I used to think that the "almost-as-low" formula would work for them, until I started listening to them talk about how they used their gearing. Basically, they do most of their riding in the middle ring, which is usually a 40 or 42, with what is now considered a narrow cassette (11 or 12 to 25 or 27). This gives them plenty of single-step changes until they're into the serious climbing end of the cassette. Then when the big climb or the big drop comes , they have two more rings to play with.

The compact does away with a lot of overlap, but there's a lot more shifting between rings to use those gears, and a lot of flat-road cruising is done in a mild state of cross-chain.

This is the only inconvenience I find with the compact set-up, when cruising around 28-30kph it is difficult to find a good gear without crossing the chain. I have learned to live with this though and still appreciate the compact. I bought a 36 chainring with the intent to alleviate this but Campagnolo had changed the bolt setup so I couldn't use it.

Now when I ride my old bike with a 52/39 I find I am quickly out of gears even though I never had this problem before and I am in as good shape as ever.

 

[FignonLeGrand]

In a valley

British road building practice wasnt to ascend via switchbacks, but build the road in a straight line up to the top ....

ha, rode that 2 weekend ago on the Fred Whitton. 34 x 29 got me up no stopping

 

[BikeCentric]

This is the only inconvenience I find with the compact set-up, when cruising around 28-30kph it is difficult to find a good gear without crossing the chain.

This is what I hated when I first tried a 34-tooth up front as well. Try a 36 tooth small ring up front, I do think it's a nice happy medium.