Triple vs compact
- Thread starter Staffordshire Mamil
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I stand by what I say.
When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.
Now these gears are for JUNIORS. As the lad grows up to nineteen years old and gets stronger, he quickly changes to a 53/39 and dispenses with the 28 sprocket in favour of a 25 cog. ala most race bikes today.
As I said, Compacts are for cyclists who can't pull a 39 x 25.
Or shall I put it another way... Compacts are for cyclists who missed the boat when they were teenagers.
Vapin' Joe
Formerly known as Smokin Joe
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
I've been on the boat since I was 13. I have learnt to choose the gears I require for my power output and recognise that everyone is different.I stand by what I say.
When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.
Now these gears are for JUNIORS. As the lad grows up to nineteen years old and gets stronger, he quickly changes to a 53/39 and dispenses with the 28 sprocket in favour of a 25 cog. ala most race bikes today.
As I said, Compacts are for cyclists who can't pull a 39 x 25.
Or shall I put it another way... Compacts are for cyclists who missed the boat when they were teenagers.
There is no right and wrong answer.
As a matter of interest, what gearing did you use when you was at school?
Did you have the 'normal everyday' 52/42? Did you swap out the 42 for the smallest available for that spider?
Vapin' Joe
Formerly known as Smokin Joe
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
While I was at school I had a single chainset, 48t. The block was probable 14-21 which was fairly standard then. When I joined a club as a junior and started racing it would have been 52/42 and probably the same 5-speed block. For road racing whatever sprockets were blanked out (14&15?) to comply with what the gearing restrictions were.
heady stuff for beginners section
as ever, I think we all forget that there's lot of different riders of different capabilities doing different rides on different terrain, I'm on a double but in London so the small ring is mint, it's been used twice on Ditchling, eerything else I've managed on the big ring
mind you I am rock hard
as ever, I think we all forget that there's lot of different riders of different capabilities doing different rides on different terrain, I'm on a double but in London so the small ring is mint, it's been used twice on Ditchling, eerything else I've managed on the big ring
mind you I am rock hard
As I keep repeating...
Compacts are for riders who can't pull a 39 x 25.
What they have to consider is "Am I submitting to my PRESENT physical capability, or shall I fit a chainset for my FUTURE capability; and work hard to get to a capability enough to pull the 39 x 25".
Buy a Compact. Do some hard work. Retrofit a 53/39.
Why not just fit the 53/39 now?
Then there will be people who say "I don't want to 'work hard'!"
Why have you bought a RACE BIKE ?
Compacts are for riders who can't pull a 39 x 25.What they have to consider is "Am I submitting to my PRESENT physical capability, or shall I fit a chainset for my FUTURE capability; and work hard to get to a capability enough to pull the 39 x 25".
Buy a Compact. Do some hard work. Retrofit a 53/39.
Why not just fit the 53/39 now?
Then there will be people who say "I don't want to 'work hard'!"
Why have you bought a RACE BIKE ?
Alien8
Senior Moment
- Location
- (A little bit north of) Cambridge
It's all horses-for-courses but Jimbo is right, if you need something lower than 39x25, but want two chainrings, you're going to have to go for a compact. My feeling is that most compact owners have them because it seems to be de-facto for most middle-of-the-range road bikes nowadays - rather than it being a concious decision because they actually need that spread in gears.
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
To get the look and because they are very light?
(I have no 'race bike' myself being more of a care-free touristy type).
It has been mentioned on here that choice of low gear is dependant on the rider’s ability.
Yes of course it is when the rider is sat on the saddle using the muscles in his legs to produce the power.
When the rider’s backside leaves the saddle, it is 90% of the rider’s mass that produces the power by means of it bearing down on the pedal through the pedalstroke. All he has to do is ride the bike like he’s carrying a loaded rucksack up a few flights of stairs.
I can remember Pedro Delgado riding up some hill in France at 16 kmh. The hill was 7.5% and he took just under 40 minutes to get to the top. 16 kmh up a 7.5% requires almost 350 W.
I counted his revs. Around sixty per minute. He must have been on 39 x 17, standing up the majority of the climb.
I went to the gym quite recently and set up the bike to absorb 340 W at 60 rpm. It required standing up for forty minutes but I ‘just about managed it’.
Pedro, however, raced down the other side of the hill and then rode up another.
Now I’m a lot heavier than Pedro, and I did the 10 km 7.5% climb just like the hill in France, and then walked to the coffee machine. I was simulating a 39 x 17 gear ratio. My Spesh SWorks has a 39 x 25 for heaven’s sake.
Now for us people in England, there aren’t many hills that are 7.5% for 10km, so why would anyone need a Compact chainset on a race bike?
Tourers and Hybrids, A TRIPLE. Race bike, a 53/39.
Yes of course it is when the rider is sat on the saddle using the muscles in his legs to produce the power.
When the rider’s backside leaves the saddle, it is 90% of the rider’s mass that produces the power by means of it bearing down on the pedal through the pedalstroke. All he has to do is ride the bike like he’s carrying a loaded rucksack up a few flights of stairs.
I can remember Pedro Delgado riding up some hill in France at 16 kmh. The hill was 7.5% and he took just under 40 minutes to get to the top. 16 kmh up a 7.5% requires almost 350 W.
I counted his revs. Around sixty per minute. He must have been on 39 x 17, standing up the majority of the climb.
I went to the gym quite recently and set up the bike to absorb 340 W at 60 rpm. It required standing up for forty minutes but I ‘just about managed it’.
Pedro, however, raced down the other side of the hill and then rode up another.
Now I’m a lot heavier than Pedro, and I did the 10 km 7.5% climb just like the hill in France, and then walked to the coffee machine. I was simulating a 39 x 17 gear ratio. My Spesh SWorks has a 39 x 25 for heaven’s sake.
Now for us people in England, there aren’t many hills that are 7.5% for 10km, so why would anyone need a Compact chainset on a race bike?
Tourers and Hybrids, A TRIPLE. Race bike, a 53/39.
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
Two questions: First, your calcualtion would depend on the weight of rider and bike as well as speed and gradient? ; second, a hill of 10km, even in France is very unlikely to be a constant 7.5% all the way so are we talking average gradient?
OK, so I'm 10% out in the numbers.
The principle here is.... If an only half decent cyclist like me can simulate an Alpine climb that a pro did on a 39 chainring; and there not being any climbs in England that are anything like the Alpine climbs, why do people cower to a 34 tooth chainring on a sub 20 lb race bike?
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
I stand by what I say.
When a young lad starts cycling, the maximum permissable gear on the bike is 52 x 14 ( 7.93m ). The bike will have a 52/38 because the lad doesn't want to be left behind by the lads with a 52/38. I had this crankset when I was fourteen.
The rear block will be 14 - 28, giving a lowest gear of 38 x 28 = 37". I had a 38 x 25 = 41" cus' I was a big lad.
Now these gears are for JUNIORS. As the lad grows up to nineteen years old and gets stronger, he quickly changes to a 53/39 and dispenses with the 28 sprocket in favour of a 25 cog. ala most race bikes today.
As I said, Compacts are for cyclists who can't pull a 39 x 25.
Or shall I put it another way... Compacts are for cyclists who missed the boat when they were teenagers.
Or carry a good 15-20 llbs of stuff on a hilly commute ........................
I've been toying with the idea of swapping out the 52/42/30 on my Dawes Giro for a 48/36/26 for next year's Castleton Classic, Kiddy Killer and Cambrian.
I seldom use the 52 ring and the lower ratio offered by the 26 ring will come in handy.
But I would NEVER, NEVER swap out the 53/39 on my SWorks.
I seldom use the 52 ring and the lower ratio offered by the 26 ring will come in handy.
But I would NEVER, NEVER swap out the 53/39 on my SWorks.
As I keep repeating...
What they have to consider is "Am I submitting to my PRESENT physical capability, or shall I fit a chainset for my FUTURE capability; and work hard to get to a capability enough to pull the 39 x 25".
Buy a Compact. Do some hard work. Retrofit a 53/39.
Why not just fit the 53/39 now?
Then there will be people who say "I don't want to 'work hard'!"
Why have you bought a RACE BIKE ?
Mumbo-jimbo!
If I'm on my "RACE BIKE" but I'm trying to get up a steep gradient pulling extra load with panniers.. I think a compact would be a justified gear choice.
- Status
