# Compact vs standard crank question...



## Donzo98 (Oct 1, 2008)

What would you rather have? 

A 50/34 with a 12-25 cassette (12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25) or

53/39 with a 12-27 cassette (12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27) 

I initially was going with the 50/34 but decided on the 53/39 combo. 

Any opinions appreciated greatly.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*neither one...*

What other people want shouldn't make any difference to you. We all have different levels of ability and ride diferent terrains, so everyone should use what they need.

Your compact crank setup has nearly the same low gear as a 39/29, but only has a top gear similar to a 53/13. It wouldn't be enough top gear for me. I chose an 11-25 to go with a 50/34, so I have a little more top gear than a 53/12 for long mountain descents and the same low gear. A lot of users would pick an 11-23 to go with the 50/34. Then they get a little more top gear and nearly as much low gear as the 39/27, without the large jumps between cogs 21-24-27.


----------



## Donzo98 (Oct 1, 2008)

C-40 said:


> What other people want shouldn't make any difference to you. We all have different levels of ability and ride diferent terrains, so everyone should use what they need.
> 
> Your compact crank setup has nearly the same low gear as a 39/29, but only has a top gear similar to a 53/13. It wouldn't be enough top gear for me. I chose an 11-25 to go with a 50/34, so I have a little more top gear than a 53/12 for long mountain descents and the same low gear. A lot of users would pick an 11-23 to go with the 50/34. Then they get a little more top gear and nearly as much low gear as the 39/27, without the large jumps between cogs 21-24-27.


Thanks for the response... 

I gave it a lot of thought. I don't really need a high top end. At this point my focus has been spinning and the 39x16 and 39x15 are my main gears on the flats where I live. 

As to those long mountain descents...once I get over the hills... I am happy to pedal as little as possible on the way down.  I felt that for where I live the 39 would have more usable gears for me than the 34.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Good idea skipping on the 50/11, you'll be better served with cogs in the middle of your cassette. What would be nice is a 13-27 for hilly routes;

13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25,27

No big jumps at the end of the cassette, unfortunately it's missing an 18, but would be a lot better than something like an 11-28 (which, like the 11-25, i dislike the idea of);

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28

I use 53-39 w/ a 13-25 for hill climbs and fast group rides and have never been held back by a 53-13 even when the pack is strung out at 50kph+


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

I have a 50/34, and I almost always use 11-23. However, for extremely serious climbing I switch to a 12-27. One thing about compact cranks is compensating for the big difference between the smaller and larger chainrings- its a bit of an unnatural jump IMO. I have learned to compensate by downshifting 3 gears while jumping to the large ring. This works much better with the 11-23, at least for me. I doubt I would get a compact crank again.


----------



## Donzo98 (Oct 1, 2008)

tferris said:


> I have a 50/34, and I almost always use 11-23. However, for extremely serious climbing I switch to a 12-27. One thing about compact cranks is compensating for the big difference between the smaller and larger chainrings- its a bit of an unnatural jump IMO. I have learned to compensate by downshifting 3 gears while jumping to the large ring. This works much better with the 11-23, at least for me. I doubt I would get a compact crank again.


I went with the 53/39 and 12-27 (12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27). Hopefully the 39/27 will be low enough for anything I might need around here. 

I went with SRAM Red components but the Red cassettes had only an 11-26 and 11-23 cassettes. I went with the SRAM OG-1070 (not the 1090) cassette 12-27 (which is heavier... but it has a 16 in it which I felt was far more usable for me than an 11.

Red cassettes are 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23 (23 won't be enough for me on the hills) and an 11-12-13-14-15--17-19-21-23-26 (no 16!).


----------



## sdjeff (Sep 4, 2008)

*Gotta be triple for me*

I must be weak, for sure I'm (relatively) slow. I recently got my first road bike with 30-39-53 triple chainrings and 12-25 cassette. I'm trying to keep a higher (for me) cadence going up hills, and a typical weekend ride of 40-60 miles will have 3000-6000 ft of climbing. But my legs feel like they're going to fall off when I hit a 95+ cadence downhill, so the 53 helps there. 

I often crest a hill, shift up a couple gears on the rear and then one or both chainrings on the front, depending on just how quick the transition is. I do find that I'm starting to spend a greater percentage of my time in the middle chainring, though - must be a combination of improved stregth when climbing and improved ability to turn a higher cadence when flat/descending. 

I personnally don't get the emphasis on close-spaced gears on the rear - I must not be in tune with cadence/effort enough for that to be a big deal to me, although every once in a while I get that 'not quite the right gear' feel.


----------



## twain (May 18, 2004)

*Ultimate: 52/36 x 11-23*

IMO, the ultimate all-round is a "not fully compact"; 52/36.
This is because: 
- 50x11 is a big downgrade if you are used to 53x11
- 34x23 is the equiv of a 39x27. If you are trying to get some more low range, this seems like overkill (unless you WANT a real granny gear).

With the 52/36, 52x11 is nearly as "big" as a 53x11. And 36x23 is equivalent to a 39x25. Perfect.

Optionally:
53x39 with 11-26 SRAM or 11-25 new Dura Ace (expensive!) will pretty much remove the need to go compact. But these options didn't exist until the past year.

Going with the SRAM 1070 is probably the most inexpensive route if you already have standard cranks. If you have compact cranks, Glory Cycles has good price/availability on FSA compact chain rings.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Hmmm... I have the standard 50/34 12-27. It works pretty well for climbing. I am not so concerned about descents as I can't be charging down the hills I go up (too dangerous).


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

twain said:


> 53x39 with 11-26 SRAM or 11-25 new Dura Ace (expensive!) will pretty much remove the need to go compact. But these options didn't exist until the past year.


You could have just gotten the 11-25 105 cassette which has been available for quite a while...


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

Here is my personal logic FWIW: (i have 53/39 12-27 10-speed Shimano and might switch to a compact next time around)

i would only consider compact (50/34 or 50/36) if I wanted better lower gears for *climbs*. In that case 50/34 12-25 or 11-25 makes almost no sense, you don't get better lower gears for climbs compared with a standard 39/27 gear. But 50/34 & 12-27 cassette does give you better gears for steeper climbs, at expense of top-end speed. At 90rpm in 50/12 you are riding at >47kmh and at 100rpm you are >52kmh. That is plenty fast for me. On descents I "cruise down" so high speed is of no importance, but my safety is (I am a coward). So, in my case 50/34 with 12-27 is the one to choose for climbs. If you don't need lower gears then stay on 53/39 & 12-27, the 39/27 will get you out of trouble on ~5% gradient mild climbs.
If you want a Campag/SRAM 39/28-29 then I think you have to get a(visually ugly, IMHO) medium or long cage rear derailleur and still compact 34/27 combo gives a better lower gear. So I prefer compact 34/27 with standard cage instead. This is Shimano 10 speed, I am not certain if SRAM or Campagnolo 10 or 11 speed would change my logic but I suspect not.


----------

