Switching from Compact to Standard

[Steve vRS]

Barchettaman said:

At 50 mph I'd be coasting.

At 50mph I'd be braking!

[okgo]

Daveyraveygravey said:

My point was I prefer a standard because I think I get the benefit more of the time; even if the difference is minimal there is still a difference.

Using this site - http://www.bikecalc.com/cadence_at_speed

At 50 mph with a 50/11 you are doing 140 rpm and with a 53/11 it would be 133 rpm.

Very rarely do people hit 50 mph, and as said above, if you do then you'll likely not be pedaling regardless of your gear.

I can't see why anyone who was just a recreational rider who isn't racing or isn't really strong (and I mean actually knows he is vs saying he is on here) would need to deviate from a compact, it does everything so well.

[Steve vRS]

okgo said:

Very rarely do people hit 50 mph, and as said above, if you do then you'll likely not be pedaling regardless of your gear.

I can't see why anyone who was just a recreational rider who isn't racing or isn't really strong (and I mean actually knows he is vs saying he is on here) would need to deviate from a compact, it does everything so well.

Because race bike. Outside cafe.



Steve

[Herman Toothrot]

Really aren't standard chain sets just a historical hang up from the Olden days when the smaller cog on the back was 13 or 14T?

So now basically redundant now 11T is normal.

[Daveyraveygravey]

I picked 50 mph because I thought it would show a larger difference in cadence; at 40 mph it was 6 rpm.

Does the (small) difference at high speeds translate when you flip it on its head and look at the small chainring/large cassette combo? A 34 front/28 rear at 5 mph is 53 rpm, whilst a 39/28 would be 46 rpm, so again 7 rpm. I guess at slower cadences 7 rpm is more siginificant?

I can remember when a double was a 52/42 (with a 5 speed cassette and shifters on the down tube!) and yes compacts are good and a sign of progress, but you don't have to be intimidated by a 53/39 especially if you combine it with the right cassette.

[okgo]

Daveyraveygravey said:

I picked 50 mph because I thought it would show a larger difference in cadence; at 40 mph it was 6 rpm.

Does the (small) difference at high speeds translate when you flip it on its head and look at the small chainring/large cassette combo? A 34 front/28 rear at 5 mph is 53 rpm, whilst a 39/28 would be 46 rpm, so again 7 rpm. I guess at slower cadences 7 rpm is more siginificant?

I can remember when a double was a 52/42 (with a 5 speed cassette and shifters on the down tube!) and yes compacts are good and a sign of progress, but you don't have to be intimidated by a 53/39 especially if you combine it with the right cassette.

Not many people ever ride pedaling at 50mph the same way not many people would be pushing 50 rpm at 5 mph either. They're just not relevant examples.

I know very good riders who ride compacts, they don't have any issue keeping up.

[thiscocks]

I always hated the big gap in gearing when switching between chainrings on a compact, that was the main reason I changed back to a std. If I were to ever ride in mountains on the continent then Id probably think about a compact again but not here in uk.