Compact vs Standard chainset

[TKF]

Unless my maths is wrong 13 to 11 is an 18% increase whereas 50 to 53 is only 6%.

[IroningMan]

I run 53/39 and 12-27; all the guys I ride with have compacts except the bloke with the triple.

I often run out of gears and just have to dig-in and get on with it - but that's making me stronger.

[Jayfish]

compact and 12-28, if I run out of gears I'm doing 40+ downhill or <4 uphill

[Mr Will]

Compact and 12-23 here. Very rarely run out of gears in either direction and if required I can easily swap to a wider range cassette. Why 23 rather than 25? It gives me the 16t sprocket which is perfect for a lot of flat roads rather than having to shuffle between 15 and 17.

[Soop Dogg]

WarrenG said:

that only works if the system has consistent gaps between sprockets. I know Campag doesn't work that way - shimano/SRAM?

I keep swapping out my 53/39 and 50/34 between a 12-25 and 11-23 cassette (10spd campy)
I think i really will be getting some 52/36 rings to fit to the compact and have done with it.

Sorry - I don't follow you.

If he swaps his cassette out for one with that is the same except for the biggest sprocket on the new (23T) one being the same as the second biggest on the old (23T), and then the smallest sprocket on the new one (11T) making up the numbers, so to speak, then everything in between (12-19T and a 21T) stays the same. The net effect is that he looses his lowest gear

My comment about not having any gaps where he didn't have them before was referring to gaps in the ratios. Why is that not valid?

Edited by Soop Dogg on Friday 12th September 12:37

Edited by Soop Dogg on Friday 12th September 12:37

[S10GTA]

IroningMan said:

I run 53/39 and 12-27; all the guys I ride with have compacts except the bloke with the triple.

I often run out of gears and just have to dig-in and get on with it - but that's making me stronger.

Same here, but a 12-25. Have not had to get off yet.

[jfdi]

IroningMan said:

I run 53/39 and 12-27; all the guys I ride with have compacts except the bloke with the triple.

I often run out of gears and just have to dig-in and get on with it - but that's making me stronger.

Ahh the elephant in the room, I see loads of chat about which cassette for this that and the other. I've never once found i've not got the right ratio to hand and never once thought I wish i hadn't specified my triple

[gazza285]

53-39 with an 11-25 here, unless I go for the stupid climbs in the area I'm fine with that, no problem getting up Cragg Vale and Holme Moss.

53-11 top is used quite a bit too, depending on the wind direction 50mph is easy to reach on the descents.

[JEA1K]

I ride a compact with a 11-28 ... I only run out of gears when doing daft speeds (i.e. 62mph last night).

http://www.strava.com/activities/192692578

[Jimbo.]

gazza285 said:

53-39 with an 11-25 here, unless I go for the stupid climbs in the area I'm fine with that, no problem getting up Cragg Vale and Holme Moss.

53-11 top is used quite a bit too, depending on the wind direction 50mph is easy to reach on the descents.

Not trying to stir, but rather a genuine question: do you reach 50mph enough to as to warrant the gaps in an 11-12. Would you not better be served by a 12-25, giving closer gears in the more commonly used range and sacrificing a mph or two in top-end?

[gazza285]

Jimbo. said:

gazza285 said:

53-39 with an 11-25 here, unless I go for the stupid climbs in the area I'm fine with that, no problem getting up Cragg Vale and Holme Moss.

53-11 top is used quite a bit too, depending on the wind direction 50mph is easy to reach on the descents.

Not trying to stir, but rather a genuine question: do you reach 50mph enough to as to warrant the gaps in an 11-12. Would you not better be served by a 12-25, giving closer gears in the more commonly used range and sacrificing a mph or two in top-end?

Possibly, but the same could be said for upgrading the bike to ten or eleven speed from the eight that it has, but eight was enough when the bike was built. There are a lot of long hills round here as well.

[Daveyraveygravey]

gazza285 said:

53-39 with an 11-25 here, unless I go for the stupid climbs in the area I'm fine with that, no problem getting up Cragg Vale and Holme Moss.

That's impressive! 53-39 and 12-27 for me but I'm a southern softie these days. Mates with compacts climb seated for longer and slightly faster than me though.

gazza285 said:

53-11 top is used quite a bit too, depending on the wind direction 50mph is easy to reach on the descents.

50 mph is harder round here, or it may be my mental powers aren't up to it!

Definitely want a mid-compact next time, 52-36 and 11-28 will be go anywhere for me.

[uncinqsix]

Daveyraveygravey said:

Definitely want a mid-compact next time, 52-36 and 11-28 will be go anywhere for me.

I have a 50-36 (ancient Sugino compact crankset) with 12-26 on the back. I can get up pretty much anything I need to around here, but there are times when I wish I had a 28. I've never felt the need for a higher top end though (I'm a big girl's blouse on descents)

[Matt_N]

jfdi said:

Ahh the elephant in the room, I see loads of chat about which cassette for this that and the other. I've never once found i've not got the right ratio to hand and never once thought I wish i hadn't specified my triple

There is so much overlap and similarity in ratios with a triple that I just don't see the point of them.

[upsidedownmark]

Daveyraveygravey said:

gazza285 said:

53-39 with an 11-25 here, unless I go for the stupid climbs in the area I'm fine with that, no problem getting up Cragg Vale and Holme Moss.

That's impressive! 53-39 and 12-27 for me but I'm a southern softie these days. Mates with compacts climb seated for longer and slightly faster than me though.

gazza285 said:

53-11 top is used quite a bit too, depending on the wind direction 50mph is easy to reach on the descents.

Question is, what are you trying to do?

If you're doing long endurance rides, sportives, trying to 'get fit' etc., the compact is your friend. If you're trying to go out and smash strava segments (or short rides), go big.

Daveyraveygravey said:

Mates with compacts climb seated for longer and slightly faster than me though.

This is really the crux of the matter. You'll get up pretty much anything on pretty much anything if you're properly determined. You'll get down anything at a greater or lesser speed no matter what.

In terms of effective, (individual) long ride pacing, time trialling etc it's all about minimising the 'spikes' of effort - small gearing allows that. You sit in on the climbs, keep your power/effort in the sustainable range and plod on. You may be slower up the climbs, but you'll be faster over the whole ride.

With larger gearing you're forced to up your power or lower your cadence, most likely both thereby just going harder. That takes a toll on your legs, joints (injury more likely) and your glycogen stores (endurance) for the ride. What you save on the climb you'll pay back with interest later on.

With respect to the descents; for effective long ride pacing, you should be coasting at those speeds. It takes a ton more energy to go from 45 to 50 than it does from 15 to 20 - it's all about drag, which increases as the square of velocity - better to spend your energy where it counts (50-40-30-20-10 rule)

Of course if you don't care about effective pacing, you're road racing and need to go with the breaks, or you're riding in big fast groups and sitting in at 40mph then all of that goes out the window


edited 'cos I'm a numpty with the quotes..

Edited by upsidedownmark on Friday 12th September 08:34

[WarrenG]

Soop Dogg said:

WarrenG said:

that only works if the system has consistent gaps between sprockets. I know Campag doesn't work that way - shimano/SRAM?

I keep swapping out my 53/39 and 50/34 between a 12-25 and 11-23 cassette (10spd campy)
I think i really will be getting some 52/36 rings to fit to the compact and have done with it.

Sorry - I don't follow you.

If he swaps his cassette out for one with that is the same except for the biggest sprocket on the new (23T) one being the same as the second biggest on the old (23T), and then the smallest sprocket on the new one (11T) making up the numbers, so to speak, then everything in between (12-19T and a 21T) stays the same. The net effect is that he looses his lowest gear

My comment about not having any gaps where he didn't have them before was referring to gaps in the ratios. Why is that not valid?

Edited by Soop Dogg on Friday 12th September 12:37

Edited by Soop Dogg on Friday 12th September 12:37

Sorry, I should have explained - I was referring to an earlier post, where I thought the idea being put forward was to cannibalise two existing cassettes to make up a range that was better, rather than buying another set of ratios. I was worried that the spaces between sprockets are not all the same - which is the spacer, not the sprocket admittedly - so you can change any sprocket between any compatible cassettes and make some frankenstein cassette, (provided you have separate sprockets and not these bolted together things. the only Exception is usually the last one on the block that meets the lockring - you can't move it further into the block and add more smaller rings. Which would only be an issue if you were trying to make a 13-23 into a 11-23 by moving the old 13 further in for instance. I've noticed that even campy are starting to fix sprockets together at the large end of their cheaper units now - so Veloce/Centaur now have the first 2 or 3 sprockets as a unit. then 6 free ones, then the last ring has the locking ratchet knurls.

(edited for spelling)

Edited by WarrenG on Sunday 14th September 20:22